MDedge ObGyn

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services released new dietary guidelines Dec. 29 that for the first time include recommended dietary patterns for infants and toddlers.

LoveTheWind/iStock/Getty Images

Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.

The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions: 

• Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
• Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
• Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
• Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
 

Proposed cutoffs rejected

The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.

It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.

The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.

The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.

In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.

“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
 

Guidance for infants and toddlers

The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise. 

At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk. 

The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.

Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.

“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
 

For all ages

From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:

• Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
• Fruits (especially whole fruit).
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain. 
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.

The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.

Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.

“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”

An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.

The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.

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

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services released new dietary guidelines Dec. 29 that for the first time include recommended dietary patterns for infants and toddlers.

LoveTheWind/iStock/Getty Images

Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.

The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions: 

• Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
• Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
• Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
• Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
 

Proposed cutoffs rejected

The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.

It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.

The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.

The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.

In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.

“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
 

Guidance for infants and toddlers

The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise. 

At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk. 

The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.

Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.

“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
 

For all ages

From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:

• Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
• Fruits (especially whole fruit).
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain. 
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.

The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.

Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.

“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”

An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.

The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.

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

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services released new dietary guidelines Dec. 29 that for the first time include recommended dietary patterns for infants and toddlers.

LoveTheWind/iStock/Getty Images

Although the new guidelines were informed by an advisory committee’s scientific report, officials omitted certain recommendations that would have reduced allowances for added sugars and alcohol intake.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans “carried forward the committee’s emphasis on limiting these dietary components, but did not include changes to quantitative recommendations, as there was not a preponderance of evidence in the material the committee reviewed to support specific changes, as required by law,” the agencies said in a news release.

The guidelines encourage Americans to “Make Every Bite Count” through four overarching suggestions: 

• Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage.
• Customize nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect preferences, cultural traditions, and budgets.
• Focus on meeting dietary needs from five food groups – vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and fortified soy alternatives, and proteins – and stay within calorie limits.
• Limit foods and beverages that are higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

The guidance “can help all Americans lead healthier lives by making every bite count,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.
 

Proposed cutoffs rejected

The guidelines omit a recommendation from the advisory committee’s scientific report to reduce intake of added sugars from less than 10% of calories to less than 6% of calories.

It also omits a recommendation that men and women who drink alcohol limit themselves to one drink per day. It maintains guidance from the 2015-2020 edition that allows two drinks per day for men.

The agencies published a document explaining why they omitted the advisory committee›s conclusions.

The American Heart Association in July had praised the suggestion to reduce added sugars. The proposed change would have helped “steer the public toward a more heart-healthy path in their daily diets,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president of the AHA, said at the time. The association would “strongly oppose any efforts to weaken these recommendations,” he added.

In its response to the new guidelines, Dr. Elkind praised the emphasis on a healthy diet “at every life stage” but called out a missed opportunity.

“We are disappointed that USDA and HHS did not accept all of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s science-based recommendations in the final guidelines for 2020, including the recommendation to lower added sugars consumption to less than 6% of calories,” he said in a prepared statement.
 

Guidance for infants and toddlers

The guidelines advise that for about the first 6 months of life, infants should exclusively receive breast milk. Infants should continue to receive breast milk through at least the first year of life, and longer if desired. Infants should be fed iron-fortified infant formula during the first year of life when breast milk is unavailable, and infants should receive supplemental vitamin D soon after birth, the guidelines advise. 

At about 6 months, infants should be introduced to a variety of nutrient-dense complementary foods, including potentially allergenic foods. Infants should eat foods that are rich in iron and zinc, particularly if they are fed breast milk. 

The guidelines also include dietary and caloric advice for pregnant and lactating women with daily or weekly amounts of food from different groups and subgroups.

Dr. Elkind highlighted the significance of these additions.

“We are pleased that for the first time, the guidelines provide recommendations for pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as infants and toddlers, underscoring the importance of maternal health and proper nutrition across the lifespan,” he said.
 

For all ages

From 12 months through older adulthood, people should follow a healthy dietary pattern to meet nutrient needs, help achieve a healthy body weight, and reduce the risk of chronic disease.

According to the guidelines, core elements of a healthy diet include:

• Vegetables of all types (dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other types).
• Fruits (especially whole fruit).
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain. 
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and lactose-free versions; and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives.
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts.

The guidelines spell out limits to added sugars, sodium, saturated fat, and alcohol. The recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day starts at age 2 years. Before age 2, foods and beverages with added sugars should be avoided.

Saturated fat should be limited to less than 10% of calories per day starting at age 2. And sodium intake should be limited to 2,300 mg/day for those age 14 and older, but just 1,200 mg/day for toddlers, 1,500 mg/day for children aged 4-8, and 1,800 mg/day for children 9-13.

“Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed,” the agencies said. “Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.”

An appendix includes estimated calorie needs based on a person’s age, sex, height, weight, and level of physical activity. A need to lose, maintain, or gain weight are among the factors that influence how many calories should be consumed, the guidelines note.

The guidelines are designed for use by health care professionals and policymakers. The USDA has launched a new MyPlate website to help consumers incorporate the dietary guidance.

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

The U.S. has distributed more than 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and more than 2.1 million of those had been given to people as of December 28, according to the CDC.

The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker showed the updated numbers as of 9 a.m. on that day. The distribution total is based on the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System, and the administered total is based on reports from state and local public health departments, as well as updates from five federal agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Indian Health Services.

Health care providers report to public health agencies up to 72 hours after the vaccine is given, and public health agencies report to the CDC after that, so there may be a lag in the data. The CDC’s numbers will be updated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“A large difference between the number of doses distributed and the number of doses administered is expected at this point in the COVID vaccination program due to several factors,” the CDC says.

Delays could occur due to the reporting of doses given, how states and local vaccine sites are managing vaccines, and the pending launch of vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.

“Numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC’s website because CDC’s overall numbers are validated through a data submission process with each jurisdiction,” the CDC says.

On Dec. 26, the agency’s tally showed that 9.5 million doses had been distributed and 1.9 million had been given, according to Reuters.

Public health officials and health care workers have begun to voice their concerns about the delay in giving the vaccines.

“We certainly are not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNNDec. 29.

Operation Warp Speed had planned for 20 million people to be vaccinated by the end of the year. Fauci said he hopes that number will be achieved next month.

“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum,” he said.

Shipment delays have affected other priority groups as well. The New York Police Department anticipated a rollout Dec. 29, but it’s now been delayed since the department hasn’t received enough Moderna doses to start giving the shots, according to the New York Daily News.

“We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information, and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members appraised of the new date and the method of distribution,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, wrote in a memo to members on Dec. 28.

“Every detective squad has been crushed with [COVID-19],” he told the newspaper. “Within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had at least two detectives hospitalized.”

President-elect Joe Biden will receive a briefing from his COVID-19 advisory team, provide a general update on the pandemic, and describe his own plan for vaccinating people quickly during an address Dec. 29, a transition official told Axios. Biden has pledged to administer 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days in office.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMd.

The U.S. has distributed more than 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and more than 2.1 million of those had been given to people as of December 28, according to the CDC.

The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker showed the updated numbers as of 9 a.m. on that day. The distribution total is based on the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System, and the administered total is based on reports from state and local public health departments, as well as updates from five federal agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Indian Health Services.

Health care providers report to public health agencies up to 72 hours after the vaccine is given, and public health agencies report to the CDC after that, so there may be a lag in the data. The CDC’s numbers will be updated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“A large difference between the number of doses distributed and the number of doses administered is expected at this point in the COVID vaccination program due to several factors,” the CDC says.

Delays could occur due to the reporting of doses given, how states and local vaccine sites are managing vaccines, and the pending launch of vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.

“Numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC’s website because CDC’s overall numbers are validated through a data submission process with each jurisdiction,” the CDC says.

On Dec. 26, the agency’s tally showed that 9.5 million doses had been distributed and 1.9 million had been given, according to Reuters.

Public health officials and health care workers have begun to voice their concerns about the delay in giving the vaccines.

“We certainly are not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNNDec. 29.

Operation Warp Speed had planned for 20 million people to be vaccinated by the end of the year. Fauci said he hopes that number will be achieved next month.

“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum,” he said.

Shipment delays have affected other priority groups as well. The New York Police Department anticipated a rollout Dec. 29, but it’s now been delayed since the department hasn’t received enough Moderna doses to start giving the shots, according to the New York Daily News.

“We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information, and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members appraised of the new date and the method of distribution,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, wrote in a memo to members on Dec. 28.

“Every detective squad has been crushed with [COVID-19],” he told the newspaper. “Within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had at least two detectives hospitalized.”

President-elect Joe Biden will receive a briefing from his COVID-19 advisory team, provide a general update on the pandemic, and describe his own plan for vaccinating people quickly during an address Dec. 29, a transition official told Axios. Biden has pledged to administer 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days in office.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMd.

The U.S. has distributed more than 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and more than 2.1 million of those had been given to people as of December 28, according to the CDC.

The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker showed the updated numbers as of 9 a.m. on that day. The distribution total is based on the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System, and the administered total is based on reports from state and local public health departments, as well as updates from five federal agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Indian Health Services.

Health care providers report to public health agencies up to 72 hours after the vaccine is given, and public health agencies report to the CDC after that, so there may be a lag in the data. The CDC’s numbers will be updated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“A large difference between the number of doses distributed and the number of doses administered is expected at this point in the COVID vaccination program due to several factors,” the CDC says.

Delays could occur due to the reporting of doses given, how states and local vaccine sites are managing vaccines, and the pending launch of vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.

“Numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC’s website because CDC’s overall numbers are validated through a data submission process with each jurisdiction,” the CDC says.

On Dec. 26, the agency’s tally showed that 9.5 million doses had been distributed and 1.9 million had been given, according to Reuters.

Public health officials and health care workers have begun to voice their concerns about the delay in giving the vaccines.

“We certainly are not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNNDec. 29.

Operation Warp Speed had planned for 20 million people to be vaccinated by the end of the year. Fauci said he hopes that number will be achieved next month.

“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum,” he said.

Shipment delays have affected other priority groups as well. The New York Police Department anticipated a rollout Dec. 29, but it’s now been delayed since the department hasn’t received enough Moderna doses to start giving the shots, according to the New York Daily News.

“We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information, and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members appraised of the new date and the method of distribution,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, wrote in a memo to members on Dec. 28.

“Every detective squad has been crushed with [COVID-19],” he told the newspaper. “Within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had at least two detectives hospitalized.”

President-elect Joe Biden will receive a briefing from his COVID-19 advisory team, provide a general update on the pandemic, and describe his own plan for vaccinating people quickly during an address Dec. 29, a transition official told Axios. Biden has pledged to administer 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days in office.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMd.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued updated guidance for people with underlying medical conditions who are considering getting the coronavirus vaccine.

scyther5/thinkstock

“Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in the guidance, posted on Dec. 26. “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may be administered to people with underlying medical conditions provided they have not had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in the vaccine.” 

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, or messenger RNA.

The CDC guidance had specific information for people with HIV, weakened immune systems, and autoimmune conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Bell’s palsy who are thinking of getting the vaccine.

People with HIV and weakened immune systems “may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data,” the CDC said.

There’s no information available yet about the safety of the vaccines for people with weakened immune systems. People with HIV were included in clinical trials, but “safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time,” the CDC said.

Cases of Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis, were reported in people receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration said Dec. 17. 

But the new CDC guidance said that the FDA “does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Researchers have determined the vaccines are safe for people with GBS, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks nerves just as they leave the spinal cord, the CDC said.

“To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination among participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials,” the CDC guidance said. “With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.”

For months, the CDC and other health authorities have said that people with certain medical conditions are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued updated guidance for people with underlying medical conditions who are considering getting the coronavirus vaccine.

scyther5/thinkstock

“Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in the guidance, posted on Dec. 26. “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may be administered to people with underlying medical conditions provided they have not had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in the vaccine.” 

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, or messenger RNA.

The CDC guidance had specific information for people with HIV, weakened immune systems, and autoimmune conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Bell’s palsy who are thinking of getting the vaccine.

People with HIV and weakened immune systems “may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data,” the CDC said.

There’s no information available yet about the safety of the vaccines for people with weakened immune systems. People with HIV were included in clinical trials, but “safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time,” the CDC said.

Cases of Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis, were reported in people receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration said Dec. 17. 

But the new CDC guidance said that the FDA “does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Researchers have determined the vaccines are safe for people with GBS, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks nerves just as they leave the spinal cord, the CDC said.

“To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination among participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials,” the CDC guidance said. “With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.”

For months, the CDC and other health authorities have said that people with certain medical conditions are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued updated guidance for people with underlying medical conditions who are considering getting the coronavirus vaccine.

scyther5/thinkstock

“Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in the guidance, posted on Dec. 26. “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may be administered to people with underlying medical conditions provided they have not had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in the vaccine.” 

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, or messenger RNA.

The CDC guidance had specific information for people with HIV, weakened immune systems, and autoimmune conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Bell’s palsy who are thinking of getting the vaccine.

People with HIV and weakened immune systems “may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data,” the CDC said.

There’s no information available yet about the safety of the vaccines for people with weakened immune systems. People with HIV were included in clinical trials, but “safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time,” the CDC said.

Cases of Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis, were reported in people receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration said Dec. 17. 

But the new CDC guidance said that the FDA “does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Researchers have determined the vaccines are safe for people with GBS, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks nerves just as they leave the spinal cord, the CDC said.

“To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination among participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials,” the CDC guidance said. “With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.”

For months, the CDC and other health authorities have said that people with certain medical conditions are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

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

Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.

The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.

“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”

The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.

Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”

To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.

They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.

Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.

Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 10³ copies/m³ in toilets or bathrooms.

One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 10³ copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m³ for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.

Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.

One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m³ for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m³ for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m³ for particles >4 mcm.

Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.

“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”

Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.

In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”

One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.

“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”

Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.

She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”

Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.

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

Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.

The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.

“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”

The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.

Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”

To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.

They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.

Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.

Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 10³ copies/m³ in toilets or bathrooms.

One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 10³ copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m³ for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.

Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.

One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m³ for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m³ for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m³ for particles >4 mcm.

Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.

“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”

Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.

In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”

One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.

“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”

Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.

She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”

Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.

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

Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.

The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.

“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”

The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.

Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”

To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.

They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.

Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.

Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 10³ copies/m³ in toilets or bathrooms.

One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 10³ copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m³ for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.

Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.

One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m³ for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m³ for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m³ for particles >4 mcm.

Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.

“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”

Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.

In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”

One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.

“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”

Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.

She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”

Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

A physician assistant participating in a virtual workshop began to cry, confessing that she felt overwhelmed with guilt because New Yorkers were hailing her as a frontline hero in the pandemic. That was when Joe Ciavarro knew he was in the right place.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

“She was saying all the things I could not verbalize because I, too, didn’t feel like I deserved all this praise and thousands of people cheering for us every evening when people were losing jobs, didn’t have money for food, and their loved ones were dying without family at their side,” says Mr. Ciavarro, a PA at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

Mr. Ciavarro, who also manages 170 other PAs on two of Mount Sinai’s campuses in Manhattan, has been on the front lines since COVID-19 first hit; he lost a colleague and friend to suicide in September.

The mental anguish from his job prompted him to sign up for the resilience workshop offered by Mount Sinai’s Center for Stress, Resilience, and Personal Growth. The center – the first of its kind in North America – was launched in June to help health care workers like him cope with the intense psychological pressures they were facing. The weekly workshops became a safe place where Mr. Ciavarro and other staff members could share their darkest fears and learn ways to help them deal with their situation.

“It’s been grueling but we learned how to take care of ourselves so we can take care of our patients,” said Mr. Ciavarro. “This has become like a guided group therapy session on ways to manage and develop resilience. And I feel like my emotions are validated, knowing that others feel the same way.”
 

Caring for their own

Medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19 are in similar predicaments, and the psychological fallout is enormous: They’re exhausted by the seemingly never-ending patient load and staffing shortages, and haunted by fears for their own safety and that of their families. Studies in China, Canada, and Italy have revealed that a significant number of doctors and nurses in the early days of the pandemic experienced high levels of distress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and insomnia.

Trauma experts at Mount Sinai believe that, globally, up to 40% of first responders and health care workers – tens of thousands of people – will suffer from PTSD after witnessing the deaths of so many patients who were alone, without family.

How to protect in midst of trauma

In formulating the program’s platform, Mount Sinai experts drew upon their extensive experience aiding 9/11 responders at the World Trade Center (WTC), as well as their system-wide wellness program that aids demoralized and burned-out physicians. While the reach of the pandemic is much broader than 9/11, experts see some commonalities in conditions that emerge after traumatic events, and they also discovered what can help.

“We learned from our WTC experience about what are protective factors – what are the social supports that buffer against depression, anxiety, and PTSD,” said Jonathan DePierro, PhD, clinical director of CSRPG and a psychologist at the Mount Sinai WTC Mental Health Program. “We also learned that people who have more prolonged exposures are at greater risk of developing mental health difficulties.”

The program itself reflects these lessons – and that’s why it’s open to all employees, not just medical professionals. Housekeepers, security staffers, even construction workers are also dealing with their lives being in danger. “That wasn’t in their job description,” said Dr. DePierro. “These people tend to have fewer social and economic resources, make less money and have fewer structural supports, which makes them even more vulnerable.”

Dr. Charney’s strategies on building resilience became a bible of sorts for the workshops, according to Dr. Katz, who authored the training curriculum. Sessions deal with how to build up reservoirs of realistic optimism, keep gratitude journals, find spiritual meaning in their lives, maintain physical wellness and create networks of social support. The workshops are meant to help participants create action plans, to reach out for support in their social networks, and keep the focus on the positives.

The goal is to give demoralized health care workers a renewed sense of competence. “The resilience workshop is a launching point to get people to show up and talk,” said Dr. Katz. “And if we do that, we’ve accomplished a lot just getting people in the door.”

The center will also have a research component to identify what works and what doesn’t so their platform can provide a template for other institutions; Dr. Marin said they’ve gotten inquiries about the program from major hospital systems in Michigan and California. They’ll also conduct longitudinal research to determine what lingering problems persist among healthcare workers over time.

Since the center opened its virtual doors, the curriculum has also been altered in response to feedback from the support staff, many of whom live in the community that surrounds Mount Sinai in northern Manhattan, which is largely lower-income Latinx and Black individuals. Workshop materials have been translated into Spanish and now feature people who reflect a more diverse set of experiences.

“Many of our employees and the population we serve identify as non-White so we’ve been doing outreach with a lot of the local unions,” said Dr. Marin. “Our next step is to take what we’re doing and work with local community organizations.”

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who use substances during pregnancy need support and education, not judgment, to promote the best outcomes, according to a panel of experts speaking at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The panelists highlighted several key issues for addressing alcohol, opioids, and cannabis use by pregnant women.

No amount of alcohol is safe

Highwaystarz-Photography/Thinkstock

Many women believe that a limited amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, in part because of mixed messages in the media suggesting that light drinking is okay, according to Erin Tracy Bradley, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We need to do a better job teaching our patients about the potential dangers of alcohol,” Dr. Bradley said in her presentation.

In fact, data suggest that women more at risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy are older and better educated. Dr. Bradley described the pattern of malformation for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that includes small eyes, a thin upper lip, and smooth skin between the upper lip and nose.

“The only cause we know of [for FAS] is alcohol exposure intrauterine for the fetus,” so it is preventable with counseling and care, and thought to be the leading preventable cause of birth defects during pregnancies, she said.

The bottom line is that there is no safe amount of alcohol,” said Dr. Bradley. However, providers are inconsistent in discussing alcohol with their pregnant patients. In addition, universal screening is important because it is difficult to predict which women will be drinking during pregnancy.

Screening allows providers to quickly assess the severity of substance use, offer a brief intervention to raise patient awareness, and refer if necessary. “There should be ‘absolutely no judgment, no shame, no stigma,’ ” Dr. Bradley emphasized. “We are the patient’s partners, and we are trying to help them have a healthy pregnancy. “

Opioid use in pregnancy spiked in recent decades

“Women have always been overrepresented when opioids are involved,” said Tricia E. Wright, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Long-term studies have shown that, overall, women are more likely to be given opioids and given higher doses, compared with men, often for conditions in which opioids are not effective, she noted.

Women use substances differently than men; “they use them to cope with everyday life,” and a history of interpersonal violence and sexual assault are coming among women with opioid use disorders, said Dr. Wright.

The majority of women with opioid use disorders are of childbearing age, which has led to an increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) said Dr. Wright.

She cited 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing an increase in NAS from 1.2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5.8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012. This increase has led to “misguided” efforts to prevent NAS through opioid detoxification, Dr. Wright said. She and colleagues conducted a systematic review in 2018 and found that, in fact, the evidence does not support detoxification as a recommended treatment intervention during pregnancy.

Opioid agonist therapy has multiple benefits for both the mother and fetus, Dr. Wright said. Maternal benefits include reduction in overdose-related deaths; decrease in the risk of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and increased engagement in prenatal care and recovery treatment. Fetal benefits include reduced fetal stress with the reduced fluctuations in maternal opioid levels, as well as decreases in intrauterine fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery.

“We know that relapse kills” because patients lose their tolerance, Dr. Wright said. “What we have seen is that overdose deaths are a leading cause of death in the postpartum period.”

When it comes to treatment, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe and effective options in pregnancy, she said. Treatment decisions should be made based on available options, patient preference, and a patient’s previous treatment experiences, as well as disease severity, social support, and the intensity of treatment needed.

“Whatever medicine you choose, it takes a village to coordinate the care,” Dr. Wright said. Maternal dose has no effect on neonatal withdrawal, so women should be encouraged to report any concerns. Either medication is compatible with breastfeeding. In fact, breastfeeding has many benefits in preventing neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Smoking cessation should be encouraged because it improves neonatal withdrawal.

Minimizing stigma is paramount, said Dr. Wright. “Substance use disorders are among the most stigmatized medical conditions, and pregnant women with substance use disorders are even more stigmatized.”

Clinicians can support patients by focusing on appropriate language, patients aren’t “addicts,” they are people with an opioid use disorder, she said.

Compassionate care for cannabis users

Cannabis use has a long history of association with women’s health, said Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, of Friends Research Institute, Baltimore. Although cannabis use overall has increased steadily in recent years, data indicate that people who are pregnant are less likely to use cannabis than those who aren’t. The exception is that individuals who report using cannabis for medical purposes only remain consistent cannabis users during pregnancy.

“The concern is cannabis and birth outcomes, as well as developmental outcomes,” Dr. Terplan said. Multiple studies on this topic support several systematic reviews, and “depending on which decade you read, the results differ slightly.”

Reviews from the 1990s showed little to no effect on birth weight, but more recent studies, such as a meta-analysis published in BMJ Open in 2015, showed increased risk of neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, anemia, and odds of admission to the neonatal ICU.

“The difference in these two eras is thought to be caused by the change in the definition of what cannabis is, and the potency has increased, and possibly therefore, as a consequence, we see outcomes we hadn’t seen before,” Dr. Terplan explained.

There is a concern with increased use and increased legalization that, there could be adverse effects on neonatal health, but recent studies in Colorado do not show a significant difference in neonatal outcomes before and after legalization, he said.

Data from pregnant women suggest that with regard to cannabis, they are concerned about their health, but they tend to seek information about cannabis use in pregnancy from family, friends, and the Internet rather than their health providers, said Dr. Terplan.

However, studies also show that providers tend to fall short and do a poor job of talking to pregnant patients about cannabis. When providers do discuss cannabis, they tend to focus on the legal aspects. “We are failing our patients when it comes to cannabis,” Dr. Terplan said. “We don’t provide the information and support they need and desire.” Instead, many providers “deploy urine drug testing, which we misinterpret.”

Dr. Terplan explained that point-of-care cannabis testing that shows “THC” is not measuring tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound; rather it captures the nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC, one that sticks around for a long time in the biological compartment.

Dr. Terplan urged clinicians not to use urine tests as a default indicator of cannabis use, but instead, “we need to sit, listen, and work with our patients from a place of empathy.”
 

Questions answered

During a question-and-answer session following the panel, Dr. Bradley was asked about preconception counseling related to alcohol consumption.

“Preconception time is a perfect time to do screening, or offer contraception if a patient is a place where she doesn’t want to become pregnant or if she wants to take advantage of any therapeutic options to get well prior to pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Wright responded to a question about the impact of punitive actions such as drug testing and incarceration. “These things decrease the chance that patients will get adequate prenatal care,” she said. “We need to advocate for our patients and advocate for changing drug laws.”

Dr. Terplan responded to a question about the impact of substance use on parenting. Parents use nicotine, alcohol, and also cannabis, he said. Data showing an association between substance use and cases of child abuse and neglect, “are of poor quality and do not support this association.”

Overall, “we need to have consistent messaging that we are not there to judge patients,” Dr. Bradley added. “The last thing we want is for patients not to be honest with us.”

Dr. Wright disclosed consulting fees from McKesson and royalties as the coauthor of a book, “Opioid-Use Disorders in Pregnancy.” Dr. Bradley had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Terplan had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who use substances during pregnancy need support and education, not judgment, to promote the best outcomes, according to a panel of experts speaking at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The panelists highlighted several key issues for addressing alcohol, opioids, and cannabis use by pregnant women.

No amount of alcohol is safe

Highwaystarz-Photography/Thinkstock

Many women believe that a limited amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, in part because of mixed messages in the media suggesting that light drinking is okay, according to Erin Tracy Bradley, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We need to do a better job teaching our patients about the potential dangers of alcohol,” Dr. Bradley said in her presentation.

In fact, data suggest that women more at risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy are older and better educated. Dr. Bradley described the pattern of malformation for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that includes small eyes, a thin upper lip, and smooth skin between the upper lip and nose.

“The only cause we know of [for FAS] is alcohol exposure intrauterine for the fetus,” so it is preventable with counseling and care, and thought to be the leading preventable cause of birth defects during pregnancies, she said.

The bottom line is that there is no safe amount of alcohol,” said Dr. Bradley. However, providers are inconsistent in discussing alcohol with their pregnant patients. In addition, universal screening is important because it is difficult to predict which women will be drinking during pregnancy.

Screening allows providers to quickly assess the severity of substance use, offer a brief intervention to raise patient awareness, and refer if necessary. “There should be ‘absolutely no judgment, no shame, no stigma,’ ” Dr. Bradley emphasized. “We are the patient’s partners, and we are trying to help them have a healthy pregnancy. “

Opioid use in pregnancy spiked in recent decades

“Women have always been overrepresented when opioids are involved,” said Tricia E. Wright, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Long-term studies have shown that, overall, women are more likely to be given opioids and given higher doses, compared with men, often for conditions in which opioids are not effective, she noted.

Women use substances differently than men; “they use them to cope with everyday life,” and a history of interpersonal violence and sexual assault are coming among women with opioid use disorders, said Dr. Wright.

The majority of women with opioid use disorders are of childbearing age, which has led to an increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) said Dr. Wright.

She cited 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing an increase in NAS from 1.2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5.8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012. This increase has led to “misguided” efforts to prevent NAS through opioid detoxification, Dr. Wright said. She and colleagues conducted a systematic review in 2018 and found that, in fact, the evidence does not support detoxification as a recommended treatment intervention during pregnancy.

Opioid agonist therapy has multiple benefits for both the mother and fetus, Dr. Wright said. Maternal benefits include reduction in overdose-related deaths; decrease in the risk of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and increased engagement in prenatal care and recovery treatment. Fetal benefits include reduced fetal stress with the reduced fluctuations in maternal opioid levels, as well as decreases in intrauterine fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery.

“We know that relapse kills” because patients lose their tolerance, Dr. Wright said. “What we have seen is that overdose deaths are a leading cause of death in the postpartum period.”

When it comes to treatment, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe and effective options in pregnancy, she said. Treatment decisions should be made based on available options, patient preference, and a patient’s previous treatment experiences, as well as disease severity, social support, and the intensity of treatment needed.

“Whatever medicine you choose, it takes a village to coordinate the care,” Dr. Wright said. Maternal dose has no effect on neonatal withdrawal, so women should be encouraged to report any concerns. Either medication is compatible with breastfeeding. In fact, breastfeeding has many benefits in preventing neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Smoking cessation should be encouraged because it improves neonatal withdrawal.

Minimizing stigma is paramount, said Dr. Wright. “Substance use disorders are among the most stigmatized medical conditions, and pregnant women with substance use disorders are even more stigmatized.”

Clinicians can support patients by focusing on appropriate language, patients aren’t “addicts,” they are people with an opioid use disorder, she said.

Compassionate care for cannabis users

Cannabis use has a long history of association with women’s health, said Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, of Friends Research Institute, Baltimore. Although cannabis use overall has increased steadily in recent years, data indicate that people who are pregnant are less likely to use cannabis than those who aren’t. The exception is that individuals who report using cannabis for medical purposes only remain consistent cannabis users during pregnancy.

“The concern is cannabis and birth outcomes, as well as developmental outcomes,” Dr. Terplan said. Multiple studies on this topic support several systematic reviews, and “depending on which decade you read, the results differ slightly.”

Reviews from the 1990s showed little to no effect on birth weight, but more recent studies, such as a meta-analysis published in BMJ Open in 2015, showed increased risk of neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, anemia, and odds of admission to the neonatal ICU.

“The difference in these two eras is thought to be caused by the change in the definition of what cannabis is, and the potency has increased, and possibly therefore, as a consequence, we see outcomes we hadn’t seen before,” Dr. Terplan explained.

There is a concern with increased use and increased legalization that, there could be adverse effects on neonatal health, but recent studies in Colorado do not show a significant difference in neonatal outcomes before and after legalization, he said.

Data from pregnant women suggest that with regard to cannabis, they are concerned about their health, but they tend to seek information about cannabis use in pregnancy from family, friends, and the Internet rather than their health providers, said Dr. Terplan.

However, studies also show that providers tend to fall short and do a poor job of talking to pregnant patients about cannabis. When providers do discuss cannabis, they tend to focus on the legal aspects. “We are failing our patients when it comes to cannabis,” Dr. Terplan said. “We don’t provide the information and support they need and desire.” Instead, many providers “deploy urine drug testing, which we misinterpret.”

Dr. Terplan explained that point-of-care cannabis testing that shows “THC” is not measuring tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound; rather it captures the nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC, one that sticks around for a long time in the biological compartment.

Dr. Terplan urged clinicians not to use urine tests as a default indicator of cannabis use, but instead, “we need to sit, listen, and work with our patients from a place of empathy.”
 

Questions answered

During a question-and-answer session following the panel, Dr. Bradley was asked about preconception counseling related to alcohol consumption.

“Preconception time is a perfect time to do screening, or offer contraception if a patient is a place where she doesn’t want to become pregnant or if she wants to take advantage of any therapeutic options to get well prior to pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Wright responded to a question about the impact of punitive actions such as drug testing and incarceration. “These things decrease the chance that patients will get adequate prenatal care,” she said. “We need to advocate for our patients and advocate for changing drug laws.”

Dr. Terplan responded to a question about the impact of substance use on parenting. Parents use nicotine, alcohol, and also cannabis, he said. Data showing an association between substance use and cases of child abuse and neglect, “are of poor quality and do not support this association.”

Overall, “we need to have consistent messaging that we are not there to judge patients,” Dr. Bradley added. “The last thing we want is for patients not to be honest with us.”

Dr. Wright disclosed consulting fees from McKesson and royalties as the coauthor of a book, “Opioid-Use Disorders in Pregnancy.” Dr. Bradley had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Terplan had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who use substances during pregnancy need support and education, not judgment, to promote the best outcomes, according to a panel of experts speaking at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The panelists highlighted several key issues for addressing alcohol, opioids, and cannabis use by pregnant women.

No amount of alcohol is safe

Highwaystarz-Photography/Thinkstock

Many women believe that a limited amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy, in part because of mixed messages in the media suggesting that light drinking is okay, according to Erin Tracy Bradley, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We need to do a better job teaching our patients about the potential dangers of alcohol,” Dr. Bradley said in her presentation.

In fact, data suggest that women more at risk for an alcohol-exposed pregnancy are older and better educated. Dr. Bradley described the pattern of malformation for fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) that includes small eyes, a thin upper lip, and smooth skin between the upper lip and nose.

“The only cause we know of [for FAS] is alcohol exposure intrauterine for the fetus,” so it is preventable with counseling and care, and thought to be the leading preventable cause of birth defects during pregnancies, she said.

The bottom line is that there is no safe amount of alcohol,” said Dr. Bradley. However, providers are inconsistent in discussing alcohol with their pregnant patients. In addition, universal screening is important because it is difficult to predict which women will be drinking during pregnancy.

Screening allows providers to quickly assess the severity of substance use, offer a brief intervention to raise patient awareness, and refer if necessary. “There should be ‘absolutely no judgment, no shame, no stigma,’ ” Dr. Bradley emphasized. “We are the patient’s partners, and we are trying to help them have a healthy pregnancy. “

Opioid use in pregnancy spiked in recent decades

“Women have always been overrepresented when opioids are involved,” said Tricia E. Wright, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Long-term studies have shown that, overall, women are more likely to be given opioids and given higher doses, compared with men, often for conditions in which opioids are not effective, she noted.

Women use substances differently than men; “they use them to cope with everyday life,” and a history of interpersonal violence and sexual assault are coming among women with opioid use disorders, said Dr. Wright.

The majority of women with opioid use disorders are of childbearing age, which has led to an increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) said Dr. Wright.

She cited 2014 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showing an increase in NAS from 1.2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5.8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012. This increase has led to “misguided” efforts to prevent NAS through opioid detoxification, Dr. Wright said. She and colleagues conducted a systematic review in 2018 and found that, in fact, the evidence does not support detoxification as a recommended treatment intervention during pregnancy.

Opioid agonist therapy has multiple benefits for both the mother and fetus, Dr. Wright said. Maternal benefits include reduction in overdose-related deaths; decrease in the risk of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C; and increased engagement in prenatal care and recovery treatment. Fetal benefits include reduced fetal stress with the reduced fluctuations in maternal opioid levels, as well as decreases in intrauterine fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery.

“We know that relapse kills” because patients lose their tolerance, Dr. Wright said. “What we have seen is that overdose deaths are a leading cause of death in the postpartum period.”

When it comes to treatment, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe and effective options in pregnancy, she said. Treatment decisions should be made based on available options, patient preference, and a patient’s previous treatment experiences, as well as disease severity, social support, and the intensity of treatment needed.

“Whatever medicine you choose, it takes a village to coordinate the care,” Dr. Wright said. Maternal dose has no effect on neonatal withdrawal, so women should be encouraged to report any concerns. Either medication is compatible with breastfeeding. In fact, breastfeeding has many benefits in preventing neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Smoking cessation should be encouraged because it improves neonatal withdrawal.

Minimizing stigma is paramount, said Dr. Wright. “Substance use disorders are among the most stigmatized medical conditions, and pregnant women with substance use disorders are even more stigmatized.”

Clinicians can support patients by focusing on appropriate language, patients aren’t “addicts,” they are people with an opioid use disorder, she said.

Compassionate care for cannabis users

Cannabis use has a long history of association with women’s health, said Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, of Friends Research Institute, Baltimore. Although cannabis use overall has increased steadily in recent years, data indicate that people who are pregnant are less likely to use cannabis than those who aren’t. The exception is that individuals who report using cannabis for medical purposes only remain consistent cannabis users during pregnancy.

“The concern is cannabis and birth outcomes, as well as developmental outcomes,” Dr. Terplan said. Multiple studies on this topic support several systematic reviews, and “depending on which decade you read, the results differ slightly.”

Reviews from the 1990s showed little to no effect on birth weight, but more recent studies, such as a meta-analysis published in BMJ Open in 2015, showed increased risk of neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, anemia, and odds of admission to the neonatal ICU.

“The difference in these two eras is thought to be caused by the change in the definition of what cannabis is, and the potency has increased, and possibly therefore, as a consequence, we see outcomes we hadn’t seen before,” Dr. Terplan explained.

There is a concern with increased use and increased legalization that, there could be adverse effects on neonatal health, but recent studies in Colorado do not show a significant difference in neonatal outcomes before and after legalization, he said.

Data from pregnant women suggest that with regard to cannabis, they are concerned about their health, but they tend to seek information about cannabis use in pregnancy from family, friends, and the Internet rather than their health providers, said Dr. Terplan.

However, studies also show that providers tend to fall short and do a poor job of talking to pregnant patients about cannabis. When providers do discuss cannabis, they tend to focus on the legal aspects. “We are failing our patients when it comes to cannabis,” Dr. Terplan said. “We don’t provide the information and support they need and desire.” Instead, many providers “deploy urine drug testing, which we misinterpret.”

Dr. Terplan explained that point-of-care cannabis testing that shows “THC” is not measuring tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive compound; rather it captures the nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC, one that sticks around for a long time in the biological compartment.

Dr. Terplan urged clinicians not to use urine tests as a default indicator of cannabis use, but instead, “we need to sit, listen, and work with our patients from a place of empathy.”
 

Questions answered

During a question-and-answer session following the panel, Dr. Bradley was asked about preconception counseling related to alcohol consumption.

“Preconception time is a perfect time to do screening, or offer contraception if a patient is a place where she doesn’t want to become pregnant or if she wants to take advantage of any therapeutic options to get well prior to pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Wright responded to a question about the impact of punitive actions such as drug testing and incarceration. “These things decrease the chance that patients will get adequate prenatal care,” she said. “We need to advocate for our patients and advocate for changing drug laws.”

Dr. Terplan responded to a question about the impact of substance use on parenting. Parents use nicotine, alcohol, and also cannabis, he said. Data showing an association between substance use and cases of child abuse and neglect, “are of poor quality and do not support this association.”

Overall, “we need to have consistent messaging that we are not there to judge patients,” Dr. Bradley added. “The last thing we want is for patients not to be honest with us.”

Dr. Wright disclosed consulting fees from McKesson and royalties as the coauthor of a book, “Opioid-Use Disorders in Pregnancy.” Dr. Bradley had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Terplan had no financial conflicts to disclose.

About 20% of gestational carriers at one institution did not meet recommended criteria developed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, according to a retrospective study of 194 patients.

The University of California, San Francisco, offers additional, stricter recommendations, including that gestational carriers have a body mass index less than 35. Under these stricter criteria, about 30% of the gestational carriers did not meet recommendations, Brett Stark, MD, MPH, reported at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2020 annual meeting, held virtually this year.

Deviating from BMI or age recommendations may be associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion, the analysis suggested. In addition, elements of a gestational carrier’s obstetric history not described in current guidelines, such as prior preterm birth, may influence gestational surrogacy outcomes.

The study was limited by incomplete information for some patients, the retrospective design, and the reliance on a relatively small cohort at a single center. Nevertheless, the findings potentially could inform discussions with patients, said Dr. Stark, a 3rd-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at the university.

Investigators aim to enroll patients in a longitudinal cohort study to further examine these questions, he said.

Protecting intended parents and carriers

“Gestational surrogacy has become an increasingly common form of third-party reproduction,” Dr. Stark said at the virtual meeting. The number of cases of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with gestational carriers increased from approximately 700 in 1999 to more than 5,500 in 2016, according to data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. “Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational carrier utilization, there remains limited guidance with regard to optimizing outcomes for both the intended parents and gestational carriers.”

ASRM and UCSF recommendations are based on expert opinion and include surprisingly little discussion about the prior pregnancy outcomes of potential gestational carriers, Dr. Stark said.

“It is important for all parties involved that we generate research and data that can help drive the development of the guidelines,” he said. Such evidence may help intended parents understand characteristics of gestational carriers that may lead to live births. “For the gestational carriers, it is important that we have information on safety so that they know they are making appropriate decisions for their family and their life.”

Gestational carrier characteristics in the present study that deviated from 2017 ASRM recommendations included age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years, mental health conditions, and having more than five prior deliveries.

“ASRM guidelines focused on criteria for gestational carriers are meant to protect infertile couples, the carrier, as well as the supporting agency,” Alan Penzias, MD, chair of ASRM’s Practice Committee who is in private practice in Boston, said in a society news release that highlighted Dr. Stark’s study. “It is important that gestational carriers have a complete medical history and examination, in addition to a psychological session with a mental health professional to ensure there are no reasons for the carrier to not move forward with pregnancy.”

A retrospective study by Kate Swanson, MD, and associates found that nonadherence to ASRM guidelines was associated with increased rates of cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity, and preterm birth.

To examine how adherence to ASRM and UCSF recommendations relates to pregnancy outcomes and maternal and neonatal morbidity and death, Dr. Stark and colleagues assessed births from gestational carrier pregnancies at UCSF between 2008 and 2019.

Of 194 gestational carriers included in the analysis, 98.9% had a prior term pregnancy, 11.9% had a prior preterm pregnancy, and 17.5% had a prior spontaneous abortion.

Indications for use of gestational surrogates included serious medical condition of intended parent (25%), uterine factor infertility (23%), recurrent pregnancy loss (10%), and same-sex male couples (8%).

When the researchers compared pregnancy outcomes for gestational carriers who met ASRM guidelines with outcomes for 38 gestational carriers who did not meet ASRM guidelines, there were no statistically significant differences. Antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum complication rates and cesarean delivery rates did not significantly differ based on ASRM guideline adherence.

Nonadherence to the stricter UCSF guidelines, however, was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion. In all, 23.7% of the 59 gestational carriers who were nonadherent to UCSF guidelines had a pregnancy end in a spontaneous abortion, compared with 6.7% of gestational carriers who were adherent to the UCSF recommendations (odds ratio, 4.35).

An analysis of individual criteria and poor pregnancy outcomes found that BMI greater than 35 was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 4.29), as was age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years (OR, 3.37).

Prior spontaneous abortion was associated with increased likelihood of a biochemical pregnancy (OR, 3.2), and prior preterm birth was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 3.19), previable delivery (OR, 25.2), cesarean delivery (OR, 2.59), and antepartum complications (OR, 3.56).
 

The role of agencies

About 76% of the gestational carriers had pregnancies mediated through a gestational surrogacy agency. Surrogates from agencies were about three times more likely than surrogates who were family, friends, or from private surrogacy arrangements to adhere to ASRM and UCSF guidelines.

Even after hearing about gestational carrier recommendations, patients may prefer to work with someone they know. “We want to provide our patients with evidence-based information if possible, but ultimately it is their decision to make,” Dr. Stark said. “And we just need to make sure that they are making an informed decision.”

Dr. Stark had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Penzias helped develop the ASRM committee opinion. He had no relevant conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stark B et al. ASRM 2020, Abstract O-251.

About 20% of gestational carriers at one institution did not meet recommended criteria developed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, according to a retrospective study of 194 patients.

The University of California, San Francisco, offers additional, stricter recommendations, including that gestational carriers have a body mass index less than 35. Under these stricter criteria, about 30% of the gestational carriers did not meet recommendations, Brett Stark, MD, MPH, reported at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2020 annual meeting, held virtually this year.

Deviating from BMI or age recommendations may be associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion, the analysis suggested. In addition, elements of a gestational carrier’s obstetric history not described in current guidelines, such as prior preterm birth, may influence gestational surrogacy outcomes.

The study was limited by incomplete information for some patients, the retrospective design, and the reliance on a relatively small cohort at a single center. Nevertheless, the findings potentially could inform discussions with patients, said Dr. Stark, a 3rd-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at the university.

Investigators aim to enroll patients in a longitudinal cohort study to further examine these questions, he said.

Protecting intended parents and carriers

“Gestational surrogacy has become an increasingly common form of third-party reproduction,” Dr. Stark said at the virtual meeting. The number of cases of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with gestational carriers increased from approximately 700 in 1999 to more than 5,500 in 2016, according to data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. “Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational carrier utilization, there remains limited guidance with regard to optimizing outcomes for both the intended parents and gestational carriers.”

ASRM and UCSF recommendations are based on expert opinion and include surprisingly little discussion about the prior pregnancy outcomes of potential gestational carriers, Dr. Stark said.

“It is important for all parties involved that we generate research and data that can help drive the development of the guidelines,” he said. Such evidence may help intended parents understand characteristics of gestational carriers that may lead to live births. “For the gestational carriers, it is important that we have information on safety so that they know they are making appropriate decisions for their family and their life.”

Gestational carrier characteristics in the present study that deviated from 2017 ASRM recommendations included age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years, mental health conditions, and having more than five prior deliveries.

“ASRM guidelines focused on criteria for gestational carriers are meant to protect infertile couples, the carrier, as well as the supporting agency,” Alan Penzias, MD, chair of ASRM’s Practice Committee who is in private practice in Boston, said in a society news release that highlighted Dr. Stark’s study. “It is important that gestational carriers have a complete medical history and examination, in addition to a psychological session with a mental health professional to ensure there are no reasons for the carrier to not move forward with pregnancy.”

A retrospective study by Kate Swanson, MD, and associates found that nonadherence to ASRM guidelines was associated with increased rates of cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity, and preterm birth.

To examine how adherence to ASRM and UCSF recommendations relates to pregnancy outcomes and maternal and neonatal morbidity and death, Dr. Stark and colleagues assessed births from gestational carrier pregnancies at UCSF between 2008 and 2019.

Of 194 gestational carriers included in the analysis, 98.9% had a prior term pregnancy, 11.9% had a prior preterm pregnancy, and 17.5% had a prior spontaneous abortion.

Indications for use of gestational surrogates included serious medical condition of intended parent (25%), uterine factor infertility (23%), recurrent pregnancy loss (10%), and same-sex male couples (8%).

When the researchers compared pregnancy outcomes for gestational carriers who met ASRM guidelines with outcomes for 38 gestational carriers who did not meet ASRM guidelines, there were no statistically significant differences. Antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum complication rates and cesarean delivery rates did not significantly differ based on ASRM guideline adherence.

Nonadherence to the stricter UCSF guidelines, however, was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion. In all, 23.7% of the 59 gestational carriers who were nonadherent to UCSF guidelines had a pregnancy end in a spontaneous abortion, compared with 6.7% of gestational carriers who were adherent to the UCSF recommendations (odds ratio, 4.35).

An analysis of individual criteria and poor pregnancy outcomes found that BMI greater than 35 was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 4.29), as was age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years (OR, 3.37).

Prior spontaneous abortion was associated with increased likelihood of a biochemical pregnancy (OR, 3.2), and prior preterm birth was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 3.19), previable delivery (OR, 25.2), cesarean delivery (OR, 2.59), and antepartum complications (OR, 3.56).
 

The role of agencies

About 76% of the gestational carriers had pregnancies mediated through a gestational surrogacy agency. Surrogates from agencies were about three times more likely than surrogates who were family, friends, or from private surrogacy arrangements to adhere to ASRM and UCSF guidelines.

Even after hearing about gestational carrier recommendations, patients may prefer to work with someone they know. “We want to provide our patients with evidence-based information if possible, but ultimately it is their decision to make,” Dr. Stark said. “And we just need to make sure that they are making an informed decision.”

Dr. Stark had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Penzias helped develop the ASRM committee opinion. He had no relevant conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stark B et al. ASRM 2020, Abstract O-251.

About 20% of gestational carriers at one institution did not meet recommended criteria developed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, according to a retrospective study of 194 patients.

The University of California, San Francisco, offers additional, stricter recommendations, including that gestational carriers have a body mass index less than 35. Under these stricter criteria, about 30% of the gestational carriers did not meet recommendations, Brett Stark, MD, MPH, reported at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2020 annual meeting, held virtually this year.

Deviating from BMI or age recommendations may be associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion, the analysis suggested. In addition, elements of a gestational carrier’s obstetric history not described in current guidelines, such as prior preterm birth, may influence gestational surrogacy outcomes.

The study was limited by incomplete information for some patients, the retrospective design, and the reliance on a relatively small cohort at a single center. Nevertheless, the findings potentially could inform discussions with patients, said Dr. Stark, a 3rd-year obstetrics and gynecology resident at the university.

Investigators aim to enroll patients in a longitudinal cohort study to further examine these questions, he said.

Protecting intended parents and carriers

“Gestational surrogacy has become an increasingly common form of third-party reproduction,” Dr. Stark said at the virtual meeting. The number of cases of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with gestational carriers increased from approximately 700 in 1999 to more than 5,500 in 2016, according to data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. “Despite the increasing prevalence of gestational carrier utilization, there remains limited guidance with regard to optimizing outcomes for both the intended parents and gestational carriers.”

ASRM and UCSF recommendations are based on expert opinion and include surprisingly little discussion about the prior pregnancy outcomes of potential gestational carriers, Dr. Stark said.

“It is important for all parties involved that we generate research and data that can help drive the development of the guidelines,” he said. Such evidence may help intended parents understand characteristics of gestational carriers that may lead to live births. “For the gestational carriers, it is important that we have information on safety so that they know they are making appropriate decisions for their family and their life.”

Gestational carrier characteristics in the present study that deviated from 2017 ASRM recommendations included age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years, mental health conditions, and having more than five prior deliveries.

“ASRM guidelines focused on criteria for gestational carriers are meant to protect infertile couples, the carrier, as well as the supporting agency,” Alan Penzias, MD, chair of ASRM’s Practice Committee who is in private practice in Boston, said in a society news release that highlighted Dr. Stark’s study. “It is important that gestational carriers have a complete medical history and examination, in addition to a psychological session with a mental health professional to ensure there are no reasons for the carrier to not move forward with pregnancy.”

A retrospective study by Kate Swanson, MD, and associates found that nonadherence to ASRM guidelines was associated with increased rates of cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity, and preterm birth.

To examine how adherence to ASRM and UCSF recommendations relates to pregnancy outcomes and maternal and neonatal morbidity and death, Dr. Stark and colleagues assessed births from gestational carrier pregnancies at UCSF between 2008 and 2019.

Of 194 gestational carriers included in the analysis, 98.9% had a prior term pregnancy, 11.9% had a prior preterm pregnancy, and 17.5% had a prior spontaneous abortion.

Indications for use of gestational surrogates included serious medical condition of intended parent (25%), uterine factor infertility (23%), recurrent pregnancy loss (10%), and same-sex male couples (8%).

When the researchers compared pregnancy outcomes for gestational carriers who met ASRM guidelines with outcomes for 38 gestational carriers who did not meet ASRM guidelines, there were no statistically significant differences. Antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum complication rates and cesarean delivery rates did not significantly differ based on ASRM guideline adherence.

Nonadherence to the stricter UCSF guidelines, however, was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion. In all, 23.7% of the 59 gestational carriers who were nonadherent to UCSF guidelines had a pregnancy end in a spontaneous abortion, compared with 6.7% of gestational carriers who were adherent to the UCSF recommendations (odds ratio, 4.35).

An analysis of individual criteria and poor pregnancy outcomes found that BMI greater than 35 was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 4.29), as was age less than 21 years or greater than 45 years (OR, 3.37).

Prior spontaneous abortion was associated with increased likelihood of a biochemical pregnancy (OR, 3.2), and prior preterm birth was associated with increased likelihood of spontaneous abortion (OR, 3.19), previable delivery (OR, 25.2), cesarean delivery (OR, 2.59), and antepartum complications (OR, 3.56).
 

The role of agencies

About 76% of the gestational carriers had pregnancies mediated through a gestational surrogacy agency. Surrogates from agencies were about three times more likely than surrogates who were family, friends, or from private surrogacy arrangements to adhere to ASRM and UCSF guidelines.

Even after hearing about gestational carrier recommendations, patients may prefer to work with someone they know. “We want to provide our patients with evidence-based information if possible, but ultimately it is their decision to make,” Dr. Stark said. “And we just need to make sure that they are making an informed decision.”

Dr. Stark had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Penzias helped develop the ASRM committee opinion. He had no relevant conflicts of interest.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stark B et al. ASRM 2020, Abstract O-251.

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

Mortality rates for inpatients with COVID-19 dropped significantly during the first 6 months of the pandemic, but outcomes depend on the hospital where patients receive care, new data show.

“[T]he characteristic that is most associated with poor or worsening hospital outcomes is high or increasing community case rates,” write David A. Asch, MD, MBA, executive director of the Center for Health Care Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The relationship between COVID-19 mortality rates and local disease prevalence suggests that “hospitals do worse when they are burdened with cases and is consistent with imperatives to flatten the curve,” the authors continue. “As case rates of COVID-19 increase across the nation, hospital mortality outcomes may worsen.”

The researchers published their study online December 22 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The quick and substantial improvement in survival “is a tribute in part to new science — for example, the science that revealed the benefits of dexamethasone,” Asch told Medscape Medical News. “But it’s also a tribute to the doctors and nurses in the hospitals who developed experience. It’s a cliché to refer to them as heroes, but that is what they are. The science and the heroic experience continues on, and so I’m optimistic that we’ll see even more improvement over time.”

However, the data also indicate that “with lots of disease in the community, hospitals may have a harder time keeping patients alive,” Asch said.  “And of course the reason this is bad news is that community level case rates are rising all over, and in some cases at rapid rates. With that rise, we might be giving back some of our past gains in survival — just as the vaccine is beginning to be distributed.”
 

Examining mortality trends

The researchers analyzed administrative claims data from a large national health insurer. They included data from 38,517 adults who were admitted with COVID-19 to 955 US hospitals between January 1 and June 30 of this year. The investigators estimated hospitals’ risk-standardized rate of 30-day in-hospital mortality or referral to hospice, adjusted for patient-level characteristics.

Overall, 3179 patients (8.25%) died, and 1433 patients (3.7%) were referred to hospice. Risk-standardized mortality or hospice referral rates for individual hospitals ranged from 5.7% to 24.7%. The average rate was 9.1% in the best-performing quintile, compared with 15.7% in the worst-performing quintile.

In a subset of 398 hospitals that had at least 10 patients admitted for COVID-19 during early (January 1 through April 30) and later periods (between May 1 and June 30), rates in all but one hospital improved, and 94% improved by at least 25%. The average risk-standardized event rate declined from 16.6% to 9.3%.

“That rate of relative improvement is striking and encouraging, but perhaps not surprising,” Asch and coauthors write. “Early efforts at treating patients with COVID-19 were based on experience with previously known causes of severe respiratory illness. Later efforts could draw on experiences specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

For instance, doctors tried different inpatient management approaches, such as early vs late assisted ventilation, differences in oxygen flow, prone or supine positioning, and anticoagulation. “Those efforts varied in how systematically they were evaluated, but our results suggest that valuable experience was gained,” the authors note.

In addition, variation between hospitals could reflect differences in quality or different admission thresholds, they continue.

The study provides “a reason for optimism that our healthcare system has improved in our ability to care for persons with COVID-19,” write Leon Boudourakis, MD, MHS, and Amit Uppal, MD, in a related commentary. Boudourakis and Uppal are both affiliated with NYC Health + Hospitals in New York City and with SUNY Downstate and New York University School of Medicine, respectively.

Similar improvements in mortality rates have been reported in the United Kingdom and in a New York City hospital system, the editorialists note. The lower mortality rates may represent clinical, healthcare system, and epidemiologic trends.

“Since the first wave of serious COVID-19 cases, physicians have learned a great deal about the best ways to treat this serious infection,” they say. “Steroids may decrease mortality in patients with respiratory failure. Remdesivir may shorten hospitalizations of patients with serious illness. Anticoagulation and prone positioning may help certain patients. Using noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy may spare subsets of patients from the harms of intubation, such as ventilator-induced lung injury.»
 

Overwhelmed hospitals

“Hospitals do not perform as well when they are overwhelmed,” which may be a reason for the correlation between community prevalence and mortality rates, Boudourakis and Uppal suggested. “In particular, patients with a precarious respiratory status require expert, meticulous therapy to avoid intubation; those who undergo intubation or have kidney failure require nuanced and timely expert care with ventilatory adjustments and kidney replacement therapy, which are difficult to perform optimally when hospital capacity is strained.”

Although the death rate has fallen to about 9% for hospitalized patients, “9% is still high,” Asch said.

“Our results show that hospitals can’t do it on their own,” Asch said. “They need all of us to keep the community spread of the disease down. The right answer now is the right answer since the beginning of the pandemic: Keep your distance, wash your hands, and wear a mask.”

Asch, Boudourakis, and Uppal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A study coauthor reported personal fees and grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

After infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibodies protect most health care workers from reinfection for up to 6 months, results of the first prospective study of the subject revealed.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The main message for health care workers is, “if you’ve had COVID, at least in the short term, you are unlikely to get it again,” David Eyre, DPhil, senior author, associate professor at the Big Data Institute and infectious diseases clinician at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Dr. Eyre and colleagues assessed for the presence of two antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among 12,541 health care workers in the United Kingdom, including about 10% who had a history of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed infection. Of those, 223 who did not have antibodies tested positive on PCR for the virus during 31 weeks of follow-up; two participants who did not have antibodies at baseline tested positive.

The study was published online Dec. 23 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s great news because there have been so many questions regarding whether or not you can be protected against reinfection, and this health care worker study is really an elegant way to address that question,” Mark Slifka, PhD, said in an interview when asked to comment on the findings.

Although “there are millions of people in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, we don’t know how common reinfection is,” said Dr. Slifka, a researcher at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and professor at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

The likelihood of a subsequent positive PCR test result was 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk among those without antibodies, compared with 0.13 per 10,000 days among those with anti-spike antibodies.

The investigators also assessed for the presence of anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers. They found a significant trend for increasing PCR-positive test results with increasing antibody levels. As with the anti-spike antibody findings, 226 of 11,543 health care providers who did not have anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibodies subsequently tested positive on PCR; by contrast, two of 1,172 participants who did not have antibodies tested positive. Adjusted for age, sex, and calendar time, this finding translates to a 0.11 incidence rate ratio (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.45; P = .002).

“This is a study a number of us have been trying to do,” said Christopher L. King, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“To really follow a group like this longitudinally like they’ve done, with a large population, and to see such a big difference – it really confirms our suspicion that those who do become infected and develop an antibody response are significantly protected from reinfection.

“What’s great about this study is it’s nearly a 10-fold reduction in risk if you’ve recovered from COVID and have antibodies,” said Dr. King, who was not involved with the research. “That’s what a lot of us have been wanting to know.”
 

Unanswered questions remain

“How long this immunity lasts, we don’t know,” Dr. King said. He predicted that antibody protection could last a year to a year and a half. The duration of protection could vary. “We know some people lose their antibodies pretty quickly, and other people don’t,” he said.

Dr. Slifka said the suggestion of “a substantially reduced risk for at least 6 months ... is great news, and the timing couldn’t be better, because we’re rolling out the vaccines.”

Not all antibody responses are alike. For example, data indicate that antibody levels following immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines are higher on average than those of people who’ve had a natural infection, Dr. King said. He added that initial data on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in development showed lower antibody levels compared with natural immunity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends immunization for those with a history of infection. “People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated,” the CDC notes on its Facts About COVID-19 Vaccines website. “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, people may be advised to get a COVID-19 vaccine even if they have been sick with COVID-19 before,” the CDC stated.

The agency also notes that people appear to become susceptible to reinfection approximately 90 days after onset of infection. However, the new evidence from the UK study that persons have up to 6 months of immune protection might lead to a modification of recommendations, especially at a time when vaccine supplies are limited, Dr. Slifka said.

Another unanswered question is why the two study participants with antibodies subsequently tested positive for reinfection. “There are a lot of things that could have made these people more susceptible,” Dr. King said. For example, they could have been heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or been immunocompromised for another reason.

Furthermore, the immune response involves more than antibody levels, Dr. King noted. Research in rhesus monkeys suggests that T cells play a role, but not as prominent a part as antibodies. “What I think is protecting us from infection is primarily the antibodies, although the T cells are probably important. Once you get infected, the T cells are probably playing a more important role in terms of whether you get very sick or not,” he said.
 

Multiplication + addition = more protected?

The 90% natural immunity protection in the study approaches the 95% efficacy associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Slifka noted. Even without immunization, this could mean a portion of the U.S. population is already protected against future infection.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates that there are about 7.7 cases of COVID-19 for every case reported.

As of Sept. 30, the CDC reported that there were 6,891,764 confirmed cases. The agency estimated that overall, approximately 53 million people in the United States have been infected. More recent numbers from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center indicate that there were 18.2 million cases in the United States as of Dec. 22. If that tally is multiplied by 7.7, the total number protected could approach 140 million, Dr. Slifka said.

“That could really be a boost in terms of knocking this pandemic down in the next couple of months,” Dr. Slifka said.

“Now, if we were to modify the current recommendations and briefly defer vaccination of people with confirmed cases of COVID-19 until later on, we could start reaching herd immunity pretty quickly,” he added.
 

Real-life implications

“There is no such thing as 100% protection, even from the infection itself. So when you’re dealing with someone with possible exposure to COVID-19, you still need to follow the proper precautions,” Dr. Slifka said.

Nonetheless, he said, “This is great news for those on the front lines who are wondering whether or not they would have any protection if they had COVID-19 before. And the answer is yes – there is a very good chance they will have protection, based on this quite large study.”

One limitation of the study is that the population consisted predominantly of healthy adult health care workers aged 65 years or younger. “Further studies are needed to assess postinfection immunity in other populations, including children, older adults, and persons with coexisting conditions, including immunosuppression,” the researchers noted.

Dr. Eyre plans to continue following the health care workers in the study, some of whom have been vaccinated for COVID-19. This ongoing research will allow him and coinvestigators to “confirm the protection offered by vaccination and investigate how postvaccine antibody responses vary by whether you have had COVID-19 before or not. We also want to understand more about how long postinfection immunity lasts.”

Dr. Eyre has received grants as a Robinson Foundation Fellow and NIHR Oxford BRC senior fellow during the conduct of the study. Dr. Slifka and Dr. King report no relevant financial relationships.

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

After infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibodies protect most health care workers from reinfection for up to 6 months, results of the first prospective study of the subject revealed.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The main message for health care workers is, “if you’ve had COVID, at least in the short term, you are unlikely to get it again,” David Eyre, DPhil, senior author, associate professor at the Big Data Institute and infectious diseases clinician at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Dr. Eyre and colleagues assessed for the presence of two antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among 12,541 health care workers in the United Kingdom, including about 10% who had a history of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed infection. Of those, 223 who did not have antibodies tested positive on PCR for the virus during 31 weeks of follow-up; two participants who did not have antibodies at baseline tested positive.

The study was published online Dec. 23 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s great news because there have been so many questions regarding whether or not you can be protected against reinfection, and this health care worker study is really an elegant way to address that question,” Mark Slifka, PhD, said in an interview when asked to comment on the findings.

Although “there are millions of people in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, we don’t know how common reinfection is,” said Dr. Slifka, a researcher at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and professor at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

The likelihood of a subsequent positive PCR test result was 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk among those without antibodies, compared with 0.13 per 10,000 days among those with anti-spike antibodies.

The investigators also assessed for the presence of anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers. They found a significant trend for increasing PCR-positive test results with increasing antibody levels. As with the anti-spike antibody findings, 226 of 11,543 health care providers who did not have anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibodies subsequently tested positive on PCR; by contrast, two of 1,172 participants who did not have antibodies tested positive. Adjusted for age, sex, and calendar time, this finding translates to a 0.11 incidence rate ratio (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.45; P = .002).

“This is a study a number of us have been trying to do,” said Christopher L. King, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“To really follow a group like this longitudinally like they’ve done, with a large population, and to see such a big difference – it really confirms our suspicion that those who do become infected and develop an antibody response are significantly protected from reinfection.

“What’s great about this study is it’s nearly a 10-fold reduction in risk if you’ve recovered from COVID and have antibodies,” said Dr. King, who was not involved with the research. “That’s what a lot of us have been wanting to know.”
 

Unanswered questions remain

“How long this immunity lasts, we don’t know,” Dr. King said. He predicted that antibody protection could last a year to a year and a half. The duration of protection could vary. “We know some people lose their antibodies pretty quickly, and other people don’t,” he said.

Dr. Slifka said the suggestion of “a substantially reduced risk for at least 6 months ... is great news, and the timing couldn’t be better, because we’re rolling out the vaccines.”

Not all antibody responses are alike. For example, data indicate that antibody levels following immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines are higher on average than those of people who’ve had a natural infection, Dr. King said. He added that initial data on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in development showed lower antibody levels compared with natural immunity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends immunization for those with a history of infection. “People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated,” the CDC notes on its Facts About COVID-19 Vaccines website. “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, people may be advised to get a COVID-19 vaccine even if they have been sick with COVID-19 before,” the CDC stated.

The agency also notes that people appear to become susceptible to reinfection approximately 90 days after onset of infection. However, the new evidence from the UK study that persons have up to 6 months of immune protection might lead to a modification of recommendations, especially at a time when vaccine supplies are limited, Dr. Slifka said.

Another unanswered question is why the two study participants with antibodies subsequently tested positive for reinfection. “There are a lot of things that could have made these people more susceptible,” Dr. King said. For example, they could have been heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or been immunocompromised for another reason.

Furthermore, the immune response involves more than antibody levels, Dr. King noted. Research in rhesus monkeys suggests that T cells play a role, but not as prominent a part as antibodies. “What I think is protecting us from infection is primarily the antibodies, although the T cells are probably important. Once you get infected, the T cells are probably playing a more important role in terms of whether you get very sick or not,” he said.
 

Multiplication + addition = more protected?

The 90% natural immunity protection in the study approaches the 95% efficacy associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Slifka noted. Even without immunization, this could mean a portion of the U.S. population is already protected against future infection.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates that there are about 7.7 cases of COVID-19 for every case reported.

As of Sept. 30, the CDC reported that there were 6,891,764 confirmed cases. The agency estimated that overall, approximately 53 million people in the United States have been infected. More recent numbers from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center indicate that there were 18.2 million cases in the United States as of Dec. 22. If that tally is multiplied by 7.7, the total number protected could approach 140 million, Dr. Slifka said.

“That could really be a boost in terms of knocking this pandemic down in the next couple of months,” Dr. Slifka said.

“Now, if we were to modify the current recommendations and briefly defer vaccination of people with confirmed cases of COVID-19 until later on, we could start reaching herd immunity pretty quickly,” he added.
 

Real-life implications

“There is no such thing as 100% protection, even from the infection itself. So when you’re dealing with someone with possible exposure to COVID-19, you still need to follow the proper precautions,” Dr. Slifka said.

Nonetheless, he said, “This is great news for those on the front lines who are wondering whether or not they would have any protection if they had COVID-19 before. And the answer is yes – there is a very good chance they will have protection, based on this quite large study.”

One limitation of the study is that the population consisted predominantly of healthy adult health care workers aged 65 years or younger. “Further studies are needed to assess postinfection immunity in other populations, including children, older adults, and persons with coexisting conditions, including immunosuppression,” the researchers noted.

Dr. Eyre plans to continue following the health care workers in the study, some of whom have been vaccinated for COVID-19. This ongoing research will allow him and coinvestigators to “confirm the protection offered by vaccination and investigate how postvaccine antibody responses vary by whether you have had COVID-19 before or not. We also want to understand more about how long postinfection immunity lasts.”

Dr. Eyre has received grants as a Robinson Foundation Fellow and NIHR Oxford BRC senior fellow during the conduct of the study. Dr. Slifka and Dr. King report no relevant financial relationships.

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

After infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibodies protect most health care workers from reinfection for up to 6 months, results of the first prospective study of the subject revealed.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The main message for health care workers is, “if you’ve had COVID, at least in the short term, you are unlikely to get it again,” David Eyre, DPhil, senior author, associate professor at the Big Data Institute and infectious diseases clinician at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Dr. Eyre and colleagues assessed for the presence of two antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among 12,541 health care workers in the United Kingdom, including about 10% who had a history of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–confirmed infection. Of those, 223 who did not have antibodies tested positive on PCR for the virus during 31 weeks of follow-up; two participants who did not have antibodies at baseline tested positive.

The study was published online Dec. 23 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s great news because there have been so many questions regarding whether or not you can be protected against reinfection, and this health care worker study is really an elegant way to address that question,” Mark Slifka, PhD, said in an interview when asked to comment on the findings.

Although “there are millions of people in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, we don’t know how common reinfection is,” said Dr. Slifka, a researcher at the Oregon National Primate Research Center and professor at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

The likelihood of a subsequent positive PCR test result was 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk among those without antibodies, compared with 0.13 per 10,000 days among those with anti-spike antibodies.

The investigators also assessed for the presence of anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibody titers. They found a significant trend for increasing PCR-positive test results with increasing antibody levels. As with the anti-spike antibody findings, 226 of 11,543 health care providers who did not have anti–nucleocapsid IgG antibodies subsequently tested positive on PCR; by contrast, two of 1,172 participants who did not have antibodies tested positive. Adjusted for age, sex, and calendar time, this finding translates to a 0.11 incidence rate ratio (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.45; P = .002).

“This is a study a number of us have been trying to do,” said Christopher L. King, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“To really follow a group like this longitudinally like they’ve done, with a large population, and to see such a big difference – it really confirms our suspicion that those who do become infected and develop an antibody response are significantly protected from reinfection.

“What’s great about this study is it’s nearly a 10-fold reduction in risk if you’ve recovered from COVID and have antibodies,” said Dr. King, who was not involved with the research. “That’s what a lot of us have been wanting to know.”
 

Unanswered questions remain

“How long this immunity lasts, we don’t know,” Dr. King said. He predicted that antibody protection could last a year to a year and a half. The duration of protection could vary. “We know some people lose their antibodies pretty quickly, and other people don’t,” he said.

Dr. Slifka said the suggestion of “a substantially reduced risk for at least 6 months ... is great news, and the timing couldn’t be better, because we’re rolling out the vaccines.”

Not all antibody responses are alike. For example, data indicate that antibody levels following immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines are higher on average than those of people who’ve had a natural infection, Dr. King said. He added that initial data on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in development showed lower antibody levels compared with natural immunity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends immunization for those with a history of infection. “People who have gotten sick with COVID-19 may still benefit from getting vaccinated,” the CDC notes on its Facts About COVID-19 Vaccines website. “Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that re-infection with COVID-19 is possible, people may be advised to get a COVID-19 vaccine even if they have been sick with COVID-19 before,” the CDC stated.

The agency also notes that people appear to become susceptible to reinfection approximately 90 days after onset of infection. However, the new evidence from the UK study that persons have up to 6 months of immune protection might lead to a modification of recommendations, especially at a time when vaccine supplies are limited, Dr. Slifka said.

Another unanswered question is why the two study participants with antibodies subsequently tested positive for reinfection. “There are a lot of things that could have made these people more susceptible,” Dr. King said. For example, they could have been heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or been immunocompromised for another reason.

Furthermore, the immune response involves more than antibody levels, Dr. King noted. Research in rhesus monkeys suggests that T cells play a role, but not as prominent a part as antibodies. “What I think is protecting us from infection is primarily the antibodies, although the T cells are probably important. Once you get infected, the T cells are probably playing a more important role in terms of whether you get very sick or not,” he said.
 

Multiplication + addition = more protected?

The 90% natural immunity protection in the study approaches the 95% efficacy associated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, Dr. Slifka noted. Even without immunization, this could mean a portion of the U.S. population is already protected against future infection.

Furthermore, the CDC estimates that there are about 7.7 cases of COVID-19 for every case reported.

As of Sept. 30, the CDC reported that there were 6,891,764 confirmed cases. The agency estimated that overall, approximately 53 million people in the United States have been infected. More recent numbers from Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center indicate that there were 18.2 million cases in the United States as of Dec. 22. If that tally is multiplied by 7.7, the total number protected could approach 140 million, Dr. Slifka said.

“That could really be a boost in terms of knocking this pandemic down in the next couple of months,” Dr. Slifka said.

“Now, if we were to modify the current recommendations and briefly defer vaccination of people with confirmed cases of COVID-19 until later on, we could start reaching herd immunity pretty quickly,” he added.
 

Real-life implications

“There is no such thing as 100% protection, even from the infection itself. So when you’re dealing with someone with possible exposure to COVID-19, you still need to follow the proper precautions,” Dr. Slifka said.

Nonetheless, he said, “This is great news for those on the front lines who are wondering whether or not they would have any protection if they had COVID-19 before. And the answer is yes – there is a very good chance they will have protection, based on this quite large study.”

One limitation of the study is that the population consisted predominantly of healthy adult health care workers aged 65 years or younger. “Further studies are needed to assess postinfection immunity in other populations, including children, older adults, and persons with coexisting conditions, including immunosuppression,” the researchers noted.

Dr. Eyre plans to continue following the health care workers in the study, some of whom have been vaccinated for COVID-19. This ongoing research will allow him and coinvestigators to “confirm the protection offered by vaccination and investigate how postvaccine antibody responses vary by whether you have had COVID-19 before or not. We also want to understand more about how long postinfection immunity lasts.”

Dr. Eyre has received grants as a Robinson Foundation Fellow and NIHR Oxford BRC senior fellow during the conduct of the study. Dr. Slifka and Dr. King report no relevant financial relationships.

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