Ob.Gyn. News

Doctors in states where abortion is legal are likely to be the next target for antiabortion activists who want to deter residents from seeking abortions across state lines, say legal experts.

Antiabortion legislators in several states are mounting efforts to clamp down on out-of-state abortions, which they view as a legal loophole.

Nineteen states have already banned the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion by requiring the clinician to be physically present when the medication is administered. These states include Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, which also recently criminalized sending abortion pills through the mail.

Some state legislators plan to introduce legislation based on a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens can sue anyone who assists state residents in obtaining an out-of-state abortion.

Meanwhile, legislators in states including New York where abortion is legal have introduced bills to shield doctors involved in reproductive care from possible negative actions by medical malpractice companies and professional misconduct charges.

This news organization asked legal experts for advice on how doctors can protect themselves and still provide appropriate medical care in this rapidly changing legal landscape. Here’s what they had to say.
 

1. What if patients from states where abortion is banned want to come to my practice in a legal state? What should I be aware of?

“Doctors should do what they think is medically necessary, but they should be aware of potential criminal and/or civil consequences in a patient’s home state, especially if those states have staked out more extreme positions on abortion such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana,” says Katherine Florey, JD, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

The patient’s home state would need to have criminal laws in place that would explicitly ban residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. “Probably the greater risk on the criminal front is that many states have existing laws that don’t specify their geographical reach but that could be construed to allow for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who help residents in obtaining an abortion,” she says.

However, criminal laws would be harder to enforce because of constitutional obstacles that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve in a court case. Another barrier is that criminal law typically requires that a significant element of the offense take place in the prosecuting state, says Ms. Florey.
 

2. Am I likely to be sued by a patient from a state with an abortion ban?

“It’s more likely that states with abortion bans will pursue civil liability cases, particularly in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that allow private individuals to pursue lawsuits against individuals providing or assisting with abortions.”

Such liability is particularly appealing to antiabortion states because it allows them to target abortion care providers rather than the women seeking abortions, an approach that might be both more politically palatable and more effective in achieving abortion-restriction goals, says Ms. Florey.

“It’s not just the threat of jail time that can deter physicians from providing abortions. They can face significant career consequences from civil liability, including being reported to their medical licensing boards and having their malpractice insurance premiums increase,” says Ms. Florey.
 

3. What if I provide ‘abortion pill’ prescriptions by telemedicine to a patient in another state?

Doctors need to know what the rules are in the patient’s home state because states generally regard where the patient is located as where telemedicine is legally conducted, says Ms. Florey. “It’s more problematic to conduct telemedicine in states where it’s illegal. It could be viewed legally as if the doctor were prescribing a medication abortion in the patient’s state.”

Ms. Florey also advises doctors to find out whether the patient’s home state bans medication abortions. “The courts or states could decide that the physician is practicing in the jurisdiction where the patient is located even if care is provided remotely. In that case, the doctor would have to comply with all the laws of that state.”

She recommends that doctors counsel patients seeking medication abortions to come to the state where abortion is legal and get on their computers there.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it provides more legal protection than providing medication abortion across state lines,” says Ms. Florey.
 

4. Can doctors be sued by patients for not informing them of the full range of treatment options, including abortion, when their health is at risk?

If the doctor is in a state that has banned abortion and the procedure is illegal, they can’t recommend something that the law doesn’t allow, says Ms. Florey.

It’s a tough call for doctors in states where abortion is illegal because they could get into legal trouble if they counsel a woman to get an abortion and the court later deems it was not medically necessary, says Ms. Florey.

But doctors could also get into legal trouble if they don’t counsel a woman to get an abortion if her life is in danger and she meets the exception in the abortion ban.

“Ultimately, I think doctors have to follow their conscience and best medical judgment but recognize the legal hazards that exist. If a physician is seeing a lot of out-of-state patients from a single jurisdiction (such as a neighboring state), it would be best to consult with an attorney from that state,” advises Ms. Florey.
 

5. If a patient from another state comes to me (in a legal state) for abortion care, am I required to provide them with any warnings, information, and so on?

Doctors may be required by some antiabortion states to mention certain risks, especially to the mother’s mental health, that could arise from abortions even if they are not well-supported by evidence, says Ms. Florey.

If a warning is required in a patient’s home state and there were complications from the procedure or the patient became depressed, it could be grounds for a civil lawsuit, says Ms. Florey.

“There is a Montana case, for example, where the plaintiff sued for malpractice after having an abortion. She alleged that she was given medically inaccurate information about the fetus’s HIV status, but she also claimed that she wasn’t informed that she might become depressed as a result of the abortion,” says Ms. Florey. (The case was ultimately decided on a different ground.)
 

6. What about complications from abortion care that I provided to a patient from another state? What are my responsibilities and risks? Can I be sued for malpractice when the patient returns to her home state?

If physicians can’t monitor the patients after their visit and something goes wrong, the doctors are at greater risk of negligence and being sued for malpractice in the patient’s home state, says Ms. Florey.

She recommends that doctors ask patients to stay for monitoring after the procedure. “I realize that may not be possible for all patients, but it’s a much safer alternative,” says Ms. Florey.

Otherwise, if the doctor communicates with the patient about the complications in her antiabortion state, the state’s courts could view the doctor as having ties to the state and claim they have jurisdiction in the case and apply the state’s laws, says Ms. Florey.

“Criminal jurisdiction would be more of stretch because the central conduct happened out of state, but states could still try to prosecute a case,” she says.
 

7. If a patient comes to me from another state, are there any residency requirements, or does the person need to find residence in my state for a period of time? Am I responsible for knowing their arrangements?

Generally, as a constitutional principle, a person can go to another state and have the services that a resident is entitled to, says Ms. Florey. 

“States can’t normally discriminate against patients from out of state, so it’s not a residency requirement unless a state imposes one. If a state did that, it would probably be unconstitutional,” she says. 

It would be less risky legally, though, if a patient remains in the state where she received abortion care for a significant period of time, says Ms. Florey.
 

8. How can I protect the privacy of patients’ medical records if they received an abortion or other reproductive care in the state?

To some extent, HIPAA accommodates state laws that mandate reporting of patient information, says Lisa C. Ikemoto, JD, also a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

The Privacy Rule doesn’t require doctors to disclose protected health information about a patient when state laws require reporting. But the rule allows them to disclose private health information when there’s a court order such as a warrant or subpoena, says Ms. Ikemoto.

“Providers should make sure that patient information remains in records that are HIPAA protected. Some states, including California, have enacted privacy laws that are more protective of patient information,” she says.

The Department of Health & Human Services issued new guidance in June for health care professionals to clarify what the Privacy Rule requires them to report in light of the restrictive abortion laws.
 

9. I practice in a state where abortion is legal. Can I be extradited to another state if I’m prosecuted for crimes relating to reproductive health services?

Yes, generally, if your state allows it, says Ms. Florey. States have a constitutional obligation to extradite citizens of a different state if that person’s home state asks for that, but states do not have to extradite their own citizens.

However, traditionally, states have cooperated with extradition requests and most states have laws in place providing for extradition in those circumstances, which they could change to exempt abortion providers.

A handful of states – Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey – have passed laws specifically shielding medical providers from being prosecuted under abortion restrictions passed in other states.

Governors in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Nevada have issued executive orders saying they will not extradite abortion providers to states that have banned abortion provision, and that state employees will generally not comply with those out-of-state investigations.
 

10. Should I increase my malpractice insurance in anticipation of more potential legal problems from patients coming to me from antiabortion states?

Yes, I would recommend that doctors increase their malpractice coverage because of the increased legal risks they could face.

“It’s possible that a state might file a lawsuit against out-of-state abortion providers. Criminal prosecution is also a possibility, but the obstacles to prosecuting a case against an out-of-state provider would be considerable, especially if their home state has passed laws shielding abortion providers,” says Ms. Florey.

Individual malpractice claims or some sort of private enforcement action in a state that has established one would be more likely, she adds.

Ms. Florey advises doctors to monitor this rapidly evolving area of law. “Everything I am saying today could change with a single Supreme Court case. There will also be this kind of push/pull as antiabortion states try to crack down on out-of-state residents who provide or assist in abortion and physicians’ home states that try to protect them from legal consequences.”

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

Doctors in states where abortion is legal are likely to be the next target for antiabortion activists who want to deter residents from seeking abortions across state lines, say legal experts.

Antiabortion legislators in several states are mounting efforts to clamp down on out-of-state abortions, which they view as a legal loophole.

Nineteen states have already banned the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion by requiring the clinician to be physically present when the medication is administered. These states include Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, which also recently criminalized sending abortion pills through the mail.

Some state legislators plan to introduce legislation based on a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens can sue anyone who assists state residents in obtaining an out-of-state abortion.

Meanwhile, legislators in states including New York where abortion is legal have introduced bills to shield doctors involved in reproductive care from possible negative actions by medical malpractice companies and professional misconduct charges.

This news organization asked legal experts for advice on how doctors can protect themselves and still provide appropriate medical care in this rapidly changing legal landscape. Here’s what they had to say.
 

1. What if patients from states where abortion is banned want to come to my practice in a legal state? What should I be aware of?

“Doctors should do what they think is medically necessary, but they should be aware of potential criminal and/or civil consequences in a patient’s home state, especially if those states have staked out more extreme positions on abortion such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana,” says Katherine Florey, JD, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

The patient’s home state would need to have criminal laws in place that would explicitly ban residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. “Probably the greater risk on the criminal front is that many states have existing laws that don’t specify their geographical reach but that could be construed to allow for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who help residents in obtaining an abortion,” she says.

However, criminal laws would be harder to enforce because of constitutional obstacles that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve in a court case. Another barrier is that criminal law typically requires that a significant element of the offense take place in the prosecuting state, says Ms. Florey.
 

2. Am I likely to be sued by a patient from a state with an abortion ban?

“It’s more likely that states with abortion bans will pursue civil liability cases, particularly in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that allow private individuals to pursue lawsuits against individuals providing or assisting with abortions.”

Such liability is particularly appealing to antiabortion states because it allows them to target abortion care providers rather than the women seeking abortions, an approach that might be both more politically palatable and more effective in achieving abortion-restriction goals, says Ms. Florey.

“It’s not just the threat of jail time that can deter physicians from providing abortions. They can face significant career consequences from civil liability, including being reported to their medical licensing boards and having their malpractice insurance premiums increase,” says Ms. Florey.
 

3. What if I provide ‘abortion pill’ prescriptions by telemedicine to a patient in another state?

Doctors need to know what the rules are in the patient’s home state because states generally regard where the patient is located as where telemedicine is legally conducted, says Ms. Florey. “It’s more problematic to conduct telemedicine in states where it’s illegal. It could be viewed legally as if the doctor were prescribing a medication abortion in the patient’s state.”

Ms. Florey also advises doctors to find out whether the patient’s home state bans medication abortions. “The courts or states could decide that the physician is practicing in the jurisdiction where the patient is located even if care is provided remotely. In that case, the doctor would have to comply with all the laws of that state.”

She recommends that doctors counsel patients seeking medication abortions to come to the state where abortion is legal and get on their computers there.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it provides more legal protection than providing medication abortion across state lines,” says Ms. Florey.
 

4. Can doctors be sued by patients for not informing them of the full range of treatment options, including abortion, when their health is at risk?

If the doctor is in a state that has banned abortion and the procedure is illegal, they can’t recommend something that the law doesn’t allow, says Ms. Florey.

It’s a tough call for doctors in states where abortion is illegal because they could get into legal trouble if they counsel a woman to get an abortion and the court later deems it was not medically necessary, says Ms. Florey.

But doctors could also get into legal trouble if they don’t counsel a woman to get an abortion if her life is in danger and she meets the exception in the abortion ban.

“Ultimately, I think doctors have to follow their conscience and best medical judgment but recognize the legal hazards that exist. If a physician is seeing a lot of out-of-state patients from a single jurisdiction (such as a neighboring state), it would be best to consult with an attorney from that state,” advises Ms. Florey.
 

5. If a patient from another state comes to me (in a legal state) for abortion care, am I required to provide them with any warnings, information, and so on?

Doctors may be required by some antiabortion states to mention certain risks, especially to the mother’s mental health, that could arise from abortions even if they are not well-supported by evidence, says Ms. Florey.

If a warning is required in a patient’s home state and there were complications from the procedure or the patient became depressed, it could be grounds for a civil lawsuit, says Ms. Florey.

“There is a Montana case, for example, where the plaintiff sued for malpractice after having an abortion. She alleged that she was given medically inaccurate information about the fetus’s HIV status, but she also claimed that she wasn’t informed that she might become depressed as a result of the abortion,” says Ms. Florey. (The case was ultimately decided on a different ground.)
 

6. What about complications from abortion care that I provided to a patient from another state? What are my responsibilities and risks? Can I be sued for malpractice when the patient returns to her home state?

If physicians can’t monitor the patients after their visit and something goes wrong, the doctors are at greater risk of negligence and being sued for malpractice in the patient’s home state, says Ms. Florey.

She recommends that doctors ask patients to stay for monitoring after the procedure. “I realize that may not be possible for all patients, but it’s a much safer alternative,” says Ms. Florey.

Otherwise, if the doctor communicates with the patient about the complications in her antiabortion state, the state’s courts could view the doctor as having ties to the state and claim they have jurisdiction in the case and apply the state’s laws, says Ms. Florey.

“Criminal jurisdiction would be more of stretch because the central conduct happened out of state, but states could still try to prosecute a case,” she says.
 

7. If a patient comes to me from another state, are there any residency requirements, or does the person need to find residence in my state for a period of time? Am I responsible for knowing their arrangements?

Generally, as a constitutional principle, a person can go to another state and have the services that a resident is entitled to, says Ms. Florey. 

“States can’t normally discriminate against patients from out of state, so it’s not a residency requirement unless a state imposes one. If a state did that, it would probably be unconstitutional,” she says. 

It would be less risky legally, though, if a patient remains in the state where she received abortion care for a significant period of time, says Ms. Florey.
 

8. How can I protect the privacy of patients’ medical records if they received an abortion or other reproductive care in the state?

To some extent, HIPAA accommodates state laws that mandate reporting of patient information, says Lisa C. Ikemoto, JD, also a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

The Privacy Rule doesn’t require doctors to disclose protected health information about a patient when state laws require reporting. But the rule allows them to disclose private health information when there’s a court order such as a warrant or subpoena, says Ms. Ikemoto.

“Providers should make sure that patient information remains in records that are HIPAA protected. Some states, including California, have enacted privacy laws that are more protective of patient information,” she says.

The Department of Health & Human Services issued new guidance in June for health care professionals to clarify what the Privacy Rule requires them to report in light of the restrictive abortion laws.
 

9. I practice in a state where abortion is legal. Can I be extradited to another state if I’m prosecuted for crimes relating to reproductive health services?

Yes, generally, if your state allows it, says Ms. Florey. States have a constitutional obligation to extradite citizens of a different state if that person’s home state asks for that, but states do not have to extradite their own citizens.

However, traditionally, states have cooperated with extradition requests and most states have laws in place providing for extradition in those circumstances, which they could change to exempt abortion providers.

A handful of states – Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey – have passed laws specifically shielding medical providers from being prosecuted under abortion restrictions passed in other states.

Governors in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Nevada have issued executive orders saying they will not extradite abortion providers to states that have banned abortion provision, and that state employees will generally not comply with those out-of-state investigations.
 

10. Should I increase my malpractice insurance in anticipation of more potential legal problems from patients coming to me from antiabortion states?

Yes, I would recommend that doctors increase their malpractice coverage because of the increased legal risks they could face.

“It’s possible that a state might file a lawsuit against out-of-state abortion providers. Criminal prosecution is also a possibility, but the obstacles to prosecuting a case against an out-of-state provider would be considerable, especially if their home state has passed laws shielding abortion providers,” says Ms. Florey.

Individual malpractice claims or some sort of private enforcement action in a state that has established one would be more likely, she adds.

Ms. Florey advises doctors to monitor this rapidly evolving area of law. “Everything I am saying today could change with a single Supreme Court case. There will also be this kind of push/pull as antiabortion states try to crack down on out-of-state residents who provide or assist in abortion and physicians’ home states that try to protect them from legal consequences.”

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

Doctors in states where abortion is legal are likely to be the next target for antiabortion activists who want to deter residents from seeking abortions across state lines, say legal experts.

Antiabortion legislators in several states are mounting efforts to clamp down on out-of-state abortions, which they view as a legal loophole.

Nineteen states have already banned the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication abortion by requiring the clinician to be physically present when the medication is administered. These states include Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas, which also recently criminalized sending abortion pills through the mail.

Some state legislators plan to introduce legislation based on a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens can sue anyone who assists state residents in obtaining an out-of-state abortion.

Meanwhile, legislators in states including New York where abortion is legal have introduced bills to shield doctors involved in reproductive care from possible negative actions by medical malpractice companies and professional misconduct charges.

This news organization asked legal experts for advice on how doctors can protect themselves and still provide appropriate medical care in this rapidly changing legal landscape. Here’s what they had to say.
 

1. What if patients from states where abortion is banned want to come to my practice in a legal state? What should I be aware of?

“Doctors should do what they think is medically necessary, but they should be aware of potential criminal and/or civil consequences in a patient’s home state, especially if those states have staked out more extreme positions on abortion such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana,” says Katherine Florey, JD, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.

The patient’s home state would need to have criminal laws in place that would explicitly ban residents from obtaining out-of-state abortions. “Probably the greater risk on the criminal front is that many states have existing laws that don’t specify their geographical reach but that could be construed to allow for criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state providers who help residents in obtaining an abortion,” she says.

However, criminal laws would be harder to enforce because of constitutional obstacles that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve in a court case. Another barrier is that criminal law typically requires that a significant element of the offense take place in the prosecuting state, says Ms. Florey.
 

2. Am I likely to be sued by a patient from a state with an abortion ban?

“It’s more likely that states with abortion bans will pursue civil liability cases, particularly in states such as Texas and Oklahoma that allow private individuals to pursue lawsuits against individuals providing or assisting with abortions.”

Such liability is particularly appealing to antiabortion states because it allows them to target abortion care providers rather than the women seeking abortions, an approach that might be both more politically palatable and more effective in achieving abortion-restriction goals, says Ms. Florey.

“It’s not just the threat of jail time that can deter physicians from providing abortions. They can face significant career consequences from civil liability, including being reported to their medical licensing boards and having their malpractice insurance premiums increase,” says Ms. Florey.
 

3. What if I provide ‘abortion pill’ prescriptions by telemedicine to a patient in another state?

Doctors need to know what the rules are in the patient’s home state because states generally regard where the patient is located as where telemedicine is legally conducted, says Ms. Florey. “It’s more problematic to conduct telemedicine in states where it’s illegal. It could be viewed legally as if the doctor were prescribing a medication abortion in the patient’s state.”

Ms. Florey also advises doctors to find out whether the patient’s home state bans medication abortions. “The courts or states could decide that the physician is practicing in the jurisdiction where the patient is located even if care is provided remotely. In that case, the doctor would have to comply with all the laws of that state.”

She recommends that doctors counsel patients seeking medication abortions to come to the state where abortion is legal and get on their computers there.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it provides more legal protection than providing medication abortion across state lines,” says Ms. Florey.
 

4. Can doctors be sued by patients for not informing them of the full range of treatment options, including abortion, when their health is at risk?

If the doctor is in a state that has banned abortion and the procedure is illegal, they can’t recommend something that the law doesn’t allow, says Ms. Florey.

It’s a tough call for doctors in states where abortion is illegal because they could get into legal trouble if they counsel a woman to get an abortion and the court later deems it was not medically necessary, says Ms. Florey.

But doctors could also get into legal trouble if they don’t counsel a woman to get an abortion if her life is in danger and she meets the exception in the abortion ban.

“Ultimately, I think doctors have to follow their conscience and best medical judgment but recognize the legal hazards that exist. If a physician is seeing a lot of out-of-state patients from a single jurisdiction (such as a neighboring state), it would be best to consult with an attorney from that state,” advises Ms. Florey.
 

5. If a patient from another state comes to me (in a legal state) for abortion care, am I required to provide them with any warnings, information, and so on?

Doctors may be required by some antiabortion states to mention certain risks, especially to the mother’s mental health, that could arise from abortions even if they are not well-supported by evidence, says Ms. Florey.

If a warning is required in a patient’s home state and there were complications from the procedure or the patient became depressed, it could be grounds for a civil lawsuit, says Ms. Florey.

“There is a Montana case, for example, where the plaintiff sued for malpractice after having an abortion. She alleged that she was given medically inaccurate information about the fetus’s HIV status, but she also claimed that she wasn’t informed that she might become depressed as a result of the abortion,” says Ms. Florey. (The case was ultimately decided on a different ground.)
 

6. What about complications from abortion care that I provided to a patient from another state? What are my responsibilities and risks? Can I be sued for malpractice when the patient returns to her home state?

If physicians can’t monitor the patients after their visit and something goes wrong, the doctors are at greater risk of negligence and being sued for malpractice in the patient’s home state, says Ms. Florey.

She recommends that doctors ask patients to stay for monitoring after the procedure. “I realize that may not be possible for all patients, but it’s a much safer alternative,” says Ms. Florey.

Otherwise, if the doctor communicates with the patient about the complications in her antiabortion state, the state’s courts could view the doctor as having ties to the state and claim they have jurisdiction in the case and apply the state’s laws, says Ms. Florey.

“Criminal jurisdiction would be more of stretch because the central conduct happened out of state, but states could still try to prosecute a case,” she says.
 

7. If a patient comes to me from another state, are there any residency requirements, or does the person need to find residence in my state for a period of time? Am I responsible for knowing their arrangements?

Generally, as a constitutional principle, a person can go to another state and have the services that a resident is entitled to, says Ms. Florey. 

“States can’t normally discriminate against patients from out of state, so it’s not a residency requirement unless a state imposes one. If a state did that, it would probably be unconstitutional,” she says. 

It would be less risky legally, though, if a patient remains in the state where she received abortion care for a significant period of time, says Ms. Florey.
 

8. How can I protect the privacy of patients’ medical records if they received an abortion or other reproductive care in the state?

To some extent, HIPAA accommodates state laws that mandate reporting of patient information, says Lisa C. Ikemoto, JD, also a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

The Privacy Rule doesn’t require doctors to disclose protected health information about a patient when state laws require reporting. But the rule allows them to disclose private health information when there’s a court order such as a warrant or subpoena, says Ms. Ikemoto.

“Providers should make sure that patient information remains in records that are HIPAA protected. Some states, including California, have enacted privacy laws that are more protective of patient information,” she says.

The Department of Health & Human Services issued new guidance in June for health care professionals to clarify what the Privacy Rule requires them to report in light of the restrictive abortion laws.
 

9. I practice in a state where abortion is legal. Can I be extradited to another state if I’m prosecuted for crimes relating to reproductive health services?

Yes, generally, if your state allows it, says Ms. Florey. States have a constitutional obligation to extradite citizens of a different state if that person’s home state asks for that, but states do not have to extradite their own citizens.

However, traditionally, states have cooperated with extradition requests and most states have laws in place providing for extradition in those circumstances, which they could change to exempt abortion providers.

A handful of states – Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey – have passed laws specifically shielding medical providers from being prosecuted under abortion restrictions passed in other states.

Governors in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Nevada have issued executive orders saying they will not extradite abortion providers to states that have banned abortion provision, and that state employees will generally not comply with those out-of-state investigations.
 

10. Should I increase my malpractice insurance in anticipation of more potential legal problems from patients coming to me from antiabortion states?

Yes, I would recommend that doctors increase their malpractice coverage because of the increased legal risks they could face.

“It’s possible that a state might file a lawsuit against out-of-state abortion providers. Criminal prosecution is also a possibility, but the obstacles to prosecuting a case against an out-of-state provider would be considerable, especially if their home state has passed laws shielding abortion providers,” says Ms. Florey.

Individual malpractice claims or some sort of private enforcement action in a state that has established one would be more likely, she adds.

Ms. Florey advises doctors to monitor this rapidly evolving area of law. “Everything I am saying today could change with a single Supreme Court case. There will also be this kind of push/pull as antiabortion states try to crack down on out-of-state residents who provide or assist in abortion and physicians’ home states that try to protect them from legal consequences.”

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

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Californians will decide in November whether to lock the right to abortion into the state constitution.

If they vote “yes” on Proposition 1, they will also lock in a right that has gotten less attention: The right to birth control.

Should the measure succeed, California would become one of the first states – if not the first – to create explicit constitutional rights to both abortion and contraception.

The lawmakers and activists behind the constitutional amendment said they hope to score a one-two punch: Protect abortion in California after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, and get ahead of what they see as the next front in the reproductive rights fight: Birth control.

“The United States Supreme Court said that the privacy and liberty protections in the United States Constitution did not extend to abortion,” said UCLA law professor Cary Franklin, an expert in constitutional law and reproductive rights who has testified before the California legislature in support of the amendment. “If they said ‘no’ on abortion, they’re probably going to say ‘no’ on birth control because that has a similar history.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ended the federal right to abortion and left states to regulate the service. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should revisit other cases that have created protections for Americans based on an implicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a federal right to contraception for married people, and which was later extended to unmarried people.

Some congressional Democrats are now trying to codify the right to contraception in federal law. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would give patients the right to access and use contraception and providers the right to furnish it. But the bill has little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have already blocked it once.

Protecting access to contraception is popular with voters. A national poll from Morning Consult and Politico conducted in late July found that 75% of registered voters support a federal law that protects a right to birth control access.

California isn’t the only state where voters are considering reproductive rights in their constitutions.

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters decisively rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to ban or dramatically restrict abortion. It failed by nearly 18 percentage points.

Kentucky voters will face a similar decision in November with a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not cover abortion.

Vermont is going in the opposite direction. Voters there will weigh a ballot measure in November that would add a right to “personal reproductive autonomy” to the state constitution, though it does not explicitly mention abortion or contraception. In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to both abortion and contraception is expected to qualify for the November ballot.

In California, Proposition 1 would prevent the state from denying or interfering with “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The proposed constitutional amendment doesn’t go into detail about what enshrining the right to contraception in the state constitution would mean.

California already has some of the strongest contraceptive-access laws in the country – and lawmakers are considering more proposals this year. For instance, state-regulated health plans must cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception; pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception to anyone with a prescription, regardless of age; and pharmacists can prescribe birth control pills on the spot. State courts have also interpreted California’s constitution to include a right to privacy that covers reproductive health decisions.

The amendment, if adopted, could provide a new legal pathway for people to sue when they’re denied contraceptives, said Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

If a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription or a cashier declined to ring up condoms, she said, customers could make a case that their rights had been violated.

Making the rights to abortion and contraception explicit in the state constitution – instead of relying on a right to privacy – would also protect against shifting political winds, said state Senate leader Toni Atkins (D–San Diego), who was the director of a women’s health clinic in the 1980s. Although California’s lawmakers and executive officers are solid supporters of abortion rights, she said, the composition of the legislature and courts’ interpretation of laws could change.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” Ms. Atkins said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment would solidify California’s role as a reproductive rights sanctuary as much of the country chips away at birth control availability, Ms. Goodwin added.

Experts said two forms of birth control that are vulnerable to restrictions in other states are intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and emergency contraception such as Plan B. These methods are often incorrectly conflated with abortion pills, which end a pregnancy instead of preventing it.

Nine states have laws that restrict emergency contraception – for example, by allowing pharmacies to refuse to dispense it or excluding it from state family planning programs – according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. In Alabama and Louisiana this year, abortion opponents introduced legislation that would restrict or ban abortion, and would also apply to emergency contraception.

“We’re seeing an erosion of abortion access that is playing out in statehouses across the country that have and will continue to target contraceptive care as well,” said Audrey Sandusky, senior director of policy and communications for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Susan Arnall, vice president of California’s Right to Life League, said the proposed amendment is symbolic and merely echoes current laws. Ms. Arnall said the campaign is mostly about Democratic politicians trying to score political points.

“It just allows the pro-abort legislators to trumpet and give them talking points about how they’re doing something about the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “It is political virtue signaling. I don’t think it does much of anything else.”

Ms. Goodwin argues that the measure’s symbolism is significant and overdue. She pointed to the Civil War era, when enslaved people in Southern states could look to free states for spiritual hope and material help. “Symbolically, what that meant is a kind of beacon of hope, that those places did exist, where one’s humanity could be regarded,” Ms. Goodwin said.

But California’s reputation as a haven for contraceptive availability may not be fully warranted, said Dima Qato, PharmD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. In her 2020 study of contraceptive access in Los Angeles County, which has some of the highest rates of teen and unintended pregnancy in the country, Dr. Qato found that only 10% of pharmacies surveyed offered pharmacist-prescribed birth control. Pharmacies in low-income and minority communities were the least likely to offer the service, Dr. Qato said, worsening disparities instead of solving them.

Dr. Qato supports the constitutional amendment but said California should focus on improving and enforcing the laws it already has.

“We don’t need more laws when we don’t address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in these communities,” she said. “Lack of enforcement and accountability disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Rachel Bluth is a correspondent for California Healthline. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Californians will decide in November whether to lock the right to abortion into the state constitution.

If they vote “yes” on Proposition 1, they will also lock in a right that has gotten less attention: The right to birth control.

Should the measure succeed, California would become one of the first states – if not the first – to create explicit constitutional rights to both abortion and contraception.

The lawmakers and activists behind the constitutional amendment said they hope to score a one-two punch: Protect abortion in California after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, and get ahead of what they see as the next front in the reproductive rights fight: Birth control.

“The United States Supreme Court said that the privacy and liberty protections in the United States Constitution did not extend to abortion,” said UCLA law professor Cary Franklin, an expert in constitutional law and reproductive rights who has testified before the California legislature in support of the amendment. “If they said ‘no’ on abortion, they’re probably going to say ‘no’ on birth control because that has a similar history.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ended the federal right to abortion and left states to regulate the service. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should revisit other cases that have created protections for Americans based on an implicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a federal right to contraception for married people, and which was later extended to unmarried people.

Some congressional Democrats are now trying to codify the right to contraception in federal law. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would give patients the right to access and use contraception and providers the right to furnish it. But the bill has little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have already blocked it once.

Protecting access to contraception is popular with voters. A national poll from Morning Consult and Politico conducted in late July found that 75% of registered voters support a federal law that protects a right to birth control access.

California isn’t the only state where voters are considering reproductive rights in their constitutions.

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters decisively rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to ban or dramatically restrict abortion. It failed by nearly 18 percentage points.

Kentucky voters will face a similar decision in November with a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not cover abortion.

Vermont is going in the opposite direction. Voters there will weigh a ballot measure in November that would add a right to “personal reproductive autonomy” to the state constitution, though it does not explicitly mention abortion or contraception. In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to both abortion and contraception is expected to qualify for the November ballot.

In California, Proposition 1 would prevent the state from denying or interfering with “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The proposed constitutional amendment doesn’t go into detail about what enshrining the right to contraception in the state constitution would mean.

California already has some of the strongest contraceptive-access laws in the country – and lawmakers are considering more proposals this year. For instance, state-regulated health plans must cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception; pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception to anyone with a prescription, regardless of age; and pharmacists can prescribe birth control pills on the spot. State courts have also interpreted California’s constitution to include a right to privacy that covers reproductive health decisions.

The amendment, if adopted, could provide a new legal pathway for people to sue when they’re denied contraceptives, said Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

If a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription or a cashier declined to ring up condoms, she said, customers could make a case that their rights had been violated.

Making the rights to abortion and contraception explicit in the state constitution – instead of relying on a right to privacy – would also protect against shifting political winds, said state Senate leader Toni Atkins (D–San Diego), who was the director of a women’s health clinic in the 1980s. Although California’s lawmakers and executive officers are solid supporters of abortion rights, she said, the composition of the legislature and courts’ interpretation of laws could change.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” Ms. Atkins said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment would solidify California’s role as a reproductive rights sanctuary as much of the country chips away at birth control availability, Ms. Goodwin added.

Experts said two forms of birth control that are vulnerable to restrictions in other states are intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and emergency contraception such as Plan B. These methods are often incorrectly conflated with abortion pills, which end a pregnancy instead of preventing it.

Nine states have laws that restrict emergency contraception – for example, by allowing pharmacies to refuse to dispense it or excluding it from state family planning programs – according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. In Alabama and Louisiana this year, abortion opponents introduced legislation that would restrict or ban abortion, and would also apply to emergency contraception.

“We’re seeing an erosion of abortion access that is playing out in statehouses across the country that have and will continue to target contraceptive care as well,” said Audrey Sandusky, senior director of policy and communications for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Susan Arnall, vice president of California’s Right to Life League, said the proposed amendment is symbolic and merely echoes current laws. Ms. Arnall said the campaign is mostly about Democratic politicians trying to score political points.

“It just allows the pro-abort legislators to trumpet and give them talking points about how they’re doing something about the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “It is political virtue signaling. I don’t think it does much of anything else.”

Ms. Goodwin argues that the measure’s symbolism is significant and overdue. She pointed to the Civil War era, when enslaved people in Southern states could look to free states for spiritual hope and material help. “Symbolically, what that meant is a kind of beacon of hope, that those places did exist, where one’s humanity could be regarded,” Ms. Goodwin said.

But California’s reputation as a haven for contraceptive availability may not be fully warranted, said Dima Qato, PharmD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. In her 2020 study of contraceptive access in Los Angeles County, which has some of the highest rates of teen and unintended pregnancy in the country, Dr. Qato found that only 10% of pharmacies surveyed offered pharmacist-prescribed birth control. Pharmacies in low-income and minority communities were the least likely to offer the service, Dr. Qato said, worsening disparities instead of solving them.

Dr. Qato supports the constitutional amendment but said California should focus on improving and enforcing the laws it already has.

“We don’t need more laws when we don’t address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in these communities,” she said. “Lack of enforcement and accountability disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Rachel Bluth is a correspondent for California Healthline. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – Californians will decide in November whether to lock the right to abortion into the state constitution.

If they vote “yes” on Proposition 1, they will also lock in a right that has gotten less attention: The right to birth control.

Should the measure succeed, California would become one of the first states – if not the first – to create explicit constitutional rights to both abortion and contraception.

The lawmakers and activists behind the constitutional amendment said they hope to score a one-two punch: Protect abortion in California after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, and get ahead of what they see as the next front in the reproductive rights fight: Birth control.

“The United States Supreme Court said that the privacy and liberty protections in the United States Constitution did not extend to abortion,” said UCLA law professor Cary Franklin, an expert in constitutional law and reproductive rights who has testified before the California legislature in support of the amendment. “If they said ‘no’ on abortion, they’re probably going to say ‘no’ on birth control because that has a similar history.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ended the federal right to abortion and left states to regulate the service. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should revisit other cases that have created protections for Americans based on an implicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, such as the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a federal right to contraception for married people, and which was later extended to unmarried people.

Some congressional Democrats are now trying to codify the right to contraception in federal law. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act, which would give patients the right to access and use contraception and providers the right to furnish it. But the bill has little chance of success in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans have already blocked it once.

Protecting access to contraception is popular with voters. A national poll from Morning Consult and Politico conducted in late July found that 75% of registered voters support a federal law that protects a right to birth control access.

California isn’t the only state where voters are considering reproductive rights in their constitutions.

On Aug. 2, Kansas voters decisively rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to ban or dramatically restrict abortion. It failed by nearly 18 percentage points.

Kentucky voters will face a similar decision in November with a proposed constitutional amendment that would declare that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not cover abortion.

Vermont is going in the opposite direction. Voters there will weigh a ballot measure in November that would add a right to “personal reproductive autonomy” to the state constitution, though it does not explicitly mention abortion or contraception. In Michigan, a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee a right to both abortion and contraception is expected to qualify for the November ballot.

In California, Proposition 1 would prevent the state from denying or interfering with “an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”

The proposed constitutional amendment doesn’t go into detail about what enshrining the right to contraception in the state constitution would mean.

California already has some of the strongest contraceptive-access laws in the country – and lawmakers are considering more proposals this year. For instance, state-regulated health plans must cover all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraception; pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception to anyone with a prescription, regardless of age; and pharmacists can prescribe birth control pills on the spot. State courts have also interpreted California’s constitution to include a right to privacy that covers reproductive health decisions.

The amendment, if adopted, could provide a new legal pathway for people to sue when they’re denied contraceptives, said Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

If a pharmacist refused to fill a birth control prescription or a cashier declined to ring up condoms, she said, customers could make a case that their rights had been violated.

Making the rights to abortion and contraception explicit in the state constitution – instead of relying on a right to privacy – would also protect against shifting political winds, said state Senate leader Toni Atkins (D–San Diego), who was the director of a women’s health clinic in the 1980s. Although California’s lawmakers and executive officers are solid supporters of abortion rights, she said, the composition of the legislature and courts’ interpretation of laws could change.

“I want to know for sure that that right is protected,” Ms. Atkins said at a legislative hearing in June. “We are protecting ourselves from future courts and future politicians.”

The amendment would solidify California’s role as a reproductive rights sanctuary as much of the country chips away at birth control availability, Ms. Goodwin added.

Experts said two forms of birth control that are vulnerable to restrictions in other states are intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and emergency contraception such as Plan B. These methods are often incorrectly conflated with abortion pills, which end a pregnancy instead of preventing it.

Nine states have laws that restrict emergency contraception – for example, by allowing pharmacies to refuse to dispense it or excluding it from state family planning programs – according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. In Alabama and Louisiana this year, abortion opponents introduced legislation that would restrict or ban abortion, and would also apply to emergency contraception.

“We’re seeing an erosion of abortion access that is playing out in statehouses across the country that have and will continue to target contraceptive care as well,” said Audrey Sandusky, senior director of policy and communications for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Susan Arnall, vice president of California’s Right to Life League, said the proposed amendment is symbolic and merely echoes current laws. Ms. Arnall said the campaign is mostly about Democratic politicians trying to score political points.

“It just allows the pro-abort legislators to trumpet and give them talking points about how they’re doing something about the overturn of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “It is political virtue signaling. I don’t think it does much of anything else.”

Ms. Goodwin argues that the measure’s symbolism is significant and overdue. She pointed to the Civil War era, when enslaved people in Southern states could look to free states for spiritual hope and material help. “Symbolically, what that meant is a kind of beacon of hope, that those places did exist, where one’s humanity could be regarded,” Ms. Goodwin said.

But California’s reputation as a haven for contraceptive availability may not be fully warranted, said Dima Qato, PharmD, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. In her 2020 study of contraceptive access in Los Angeles County, which has some of the highest rates of teen and unintended pregnancy in the country, Dr. Qato found that only 10% of pharmacies surveyed offered pharmacist-prescribed birth control. Pharmacies in low-income and minority communities were the least likely to offer the service, Dr. Qato said, worsening disparities instead of solving them.

Dr. Qato supports the constitutional amendment but said California should focus on improving and enforcing the laws it already has.

“We don’t need more laws when we don’t address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in these communities,” she said. “Lack of enforcement and accountability disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Rachel Bluth is a correspondent for California Healthline. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

One in eight adults (12.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely experience long-term symptoms, a large study published in The Lancet indicates.

The researchers determined that percentage by comparing long-term symptoms in people infected by SARS-CoV-2 with similar symptoms in uninfected people over the same time period.

Among the group of infected study participants in the Netherlands, 21.4% had at least one new or severely increased symptom 3-5 months after infection compared with before infection. When that group of 21.4% was compared with 8.7% of uninfected people in the same study, the researchers were able to calculate a prevalence 12.7% with long COVID.

“This finding shows that post–COVID-19 condition is an urgent problem with a mounting human toll,” the study authors wrote.

The research design was novel, two editorialists said in an accompanying commentary.

Christopher Brightling, PhD, and Rachael Evans, MBChB, PhD, of the Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester (England), noted: “This is a major advance on prior long COVID prevalence estimates as it includes a matched uninfected group and accounts for symptoms before COVID-19 infection.”
 

Symptoms that persist

The Lancet study found that 3-5 months after COVID (compared with before COVID) and compared with the non-COVID comparison group, the symptoms that persist were chest pain, breathing difficulties, pain when breathing, muscle pain, loss of taste and/or smell, tingling extremities, lump in throat, feeling hot and cold alternately, heavy limbs, and tiredness.

The authors noted that symptoms such as brain fog were found to be relevant to long COVID after the data collection period for this paper and were not included in this research.

Researcher Aranka V. Ballering, MSc, PhD candidate, said in an interview that the researchers found fever is a symptom that is clearly present during the acute phase of the disease and it peaks the day of the COVID-19 diagnosis, but also wears off.

Loss of taste and smell, however, rapidly increases in severity when COVID-19 is diagnosed, but also persists and is still present 3-5 months after COVID.

Ms. Ballering, with the department of psychiatry at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), said she was surprised by the sex difference made evident in their research: “Women showed more severe persistent symptoms than men.”
 

Closer to a clearer definition

The authors said their findings also pinpoint symptoms that bring us closer to a better definition of long COVID, which has many different definitions globally.

“These symptoms have the highest discriminative ability to distinguish between post–COVID-19 condition and non–COVID-19–related symptoms,” they wrote.

Researchers collected data by asking participants in the northern Netherlands, who were part of the population-based Lifelines COVID-19 study, to regularly complete digital questionnaires on 23 symptoms commonly associated with long COVID. The questionnaire was sent out 24 times to the same people between March 2020 and August 2021. At that time, people had the Alpha or earlier variants.

Participants were considered COVID-19 positive if they had either a positive test or a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19.

Of 76,422 study participants, the 5.5% (4,231) who had COVID were matched to 8,462 controls. Researchers accounted for sex, age, and time of completing questionnaires.
 

Effect of hospitalization, vaccination unclear

Ms. Ballering said it’s unclear from this data whether vaccination or whether a person was hospitalized would change the prevalence of persistent symptoms.

Because of the period when the data were collected, “the vast majority of our study population was not fully vaccinated,” she said.

However, she pointed to recent research that shows that immunization against COVID is only partially effective against persistent somatic symptoms after COVID.

Also, only 5% of men and 2.5% of women in the study were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, so the findings can’t easily be generalized to hospitalized patients.

The Lifelines study was an add-on study to the multidisciplinary, prospective, population-based, observational Dutch Lifelines cohort study examining 167,729 people in the Netherlands. Almost all were White, a limitation of the study, and 58% were female. Average age was 54.

The editorialists also noted additional limitations of the study were that this research “did not fully consider the impact on mental health” and was conducted in one region in the Netherlands.

Janko Nikolich-Žugich, MD, PhD, director of the Aegis Consortium for Pandemic-Free Future and head of the immunobiology department at University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that he agreed with the editorialists that a primary benefit of this study is that it corrected for symptoms people had before COVID, something other studies have not been able to do.

However, he cautioned about generalizing the results for the United States and other countries because of the lack of diversity in the study population with regard to education level, socioeconomic factors, and race. He pointed out that access issues are also different in the Netherlands, which has universal health care.

He said brain fog as a symptom of long COVID is of high interest and will be important to include in future studies that are able to extend the study period.

The work was funded by ZonMw; the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen; and the provinces of Drenthe, Friesland, and Groningen. The study authors and Dr. Nikolich-Žugich have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brightling has received consultancy and or grants paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Mologic, and 4DPharma for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research. Dr. Evans has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca on the topic of long COVID and from GlaxoSmithKline on digital health, and speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim on long COVID.

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

One in eight adults (12.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely experience long-term symptoms, a large study published in The Lancet indicates.

The researchers determined that percentage by comparing long-term symptoms in people infected by SARS-CoV-2 with similar symptoms in uninfected people over the same time period.

Among the group of infected study participants in the Netherlands, 21.4% had at least one new or severely increased symptom 3-5 months after infection compared with before infection. When that group of 21.4% was compared with 8.7% of uninfected people in the same study, the researchers were able to calculate a prevalence 12.7% with long COVID.

“This finding shows that post–COVID-19 condition is an urgent problem with a mounting human toll,” the study authors wrote.

The research design was novel, two editorialists said in an accompanying commentary.

Christopher Brightling, PhD, and Rachael Evans, MBChB, PhD, of the Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester (England), noted: “This is a major advance on prior long COVID prevalence estimates as it includes a matched uninfected group and accounts for symptoms before COVID-19 infection.”
 

Symptoms that persist

The Lancet study found that 3-5 months after COVID (compared with before COVID) and compared with the non-COVID comparison group, the symptoms that persist were chest pain, breathing difficulties, pain when breathing, muscle pain, loss of taste and/or smell, tingling extremities, lump in throat, feeling hot and cold alternately, heavy limbs, and tiredness.

The authors noted that symptoms such as brain fog were found to be relevant to long COVID after the data collection period for this paper and were not included in this research.

Researcher Aranka V. Ballering, MSc, PhD candidate, said in an interview that the researchers found fever is a symptom that is clearly present during the acute phase of the disease and it peaks the day of the COVID-19 diagnosis, but also wears off.

Loss of taste and smell, however, rapidly increases in severity when COVID-19 is diagnosed, but also persists and is still present 3-5 months after COVID.

Ms. Ballering, with the department of psychiatry at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), said she was surprised by the sex difference made evident in their research: “Women showed more severe persistent symptoms than men.”
 

Closer to a clearer definition

The authors said their findings also pinpoint symptoms that bring us closer to a better definition of long COVID, which has many different definitions globally.

“These symptoms have the highest discriminative ability to distinguish between post–COVID-19 condition and non–COVID-19–related symptoms,” they wrote.

Researchers collected data by asking participants in the northern Netherlands, who were part of the population-based Lifelines COVID-19 study, to regularly complete digital questionnaires on 23 symptoms commonly associated with long COVID. The questionnaire was sent out 24 times to the same people between March 2020 and August 2021. At that time, people had the Alpha or earlier variants.

Participants were considered COVID-19 positive if they had either a positive test or a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19.

Of 76,422 study participants, the 5.5% (4,231) who had COVID were matched to 8,462 controls. Researchers accounted for sex, age, and time of completing questionnaires.
 

Effect of hospitalization, vaccination unclear

Ms. Ballering said it’s unclear from this data whether vaccination or whether a person was hospitalized would change the prevalence of persistent symptoms.

Because of the period when the data were collected, “the vast majority of our study population was not fully vaccinated,” she said.

However, she pointed to recent research that shows that immunization against COVID is only partially effective against persistent somatic symptoms after COVID.

Also, only 5% of men and 2.5% of women in the study were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, so the findings can’t easily be generalized to hospitalized patients.

The Lifelines study was an add-on study to the multidisciplinary, prospective, population-based, observational Dutch Lifelines cohort study examining 167,729 people in the Netherlands. Almost all were White, a limitation of the study, and 58% were female. Average age was 54.

The editorialists also noted additional limitations of the study were that this research “did not fully consider the impact on mental health” and was conducted in one region in the Netherlands.

Janko Nikolich-Žugich, MD, PhD, director of the Aegis Consortium for Pandemic-Free Future and head of the immunobiology department at University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that he agreed with the editorialists that a primary benefit of this study is that it corrected for symptoms people had before COVID, something other studies have not been able to do.

However, he cautioned about generalizing the results for the United States and other countries because of the lack of diversity in the study population with regard to education level, socioeconomic factors, and race. He pointed out that access issues are also different in the Netherlands, which has universal health care.

He said brain fog as a symptom of long COVID is of high interest and will be important to include in future studies that are able to extend the study period.

The work was funded by ZonMw; the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen; and the provinces of Drenthe, Friesland, and Groningen. The study authors and Dr. Nikolich-Žugich have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brightling has received consultancy and or grants paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Mologic, and 4DPharma for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research. Dr. Evans has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca on the topic of long COVID and from GlaxoSmithKline on digital health, and speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim on long COVID.

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

One in eight adults (12.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely experience long-term symptoms, a large study published in The Lancet indicates.

The researchers determined that percentage by comparing long-term symptoms in people infected by SARS-CoV-2 with similar symptoms in uninfected people over the same time period.

Among the group of infected study participants in the Netherlands, 21.4% had at least one new or severely increased symptom 3-5 months after infection compared with before infection. When that group of 21.4% was compared with 8.7% of uninfected people in the same study, the researchers were able to calculate a prevalence 12.7% with long COVID.

“This finding shows that post–COVID-19 condition is an urgent problem with a mounting human toll,” the study authors wrote.

The research design was novel, two editorialists said in an accompanying commentary.

Christopher Brightling, PhD, and Rachael Evans, MBChB, PhD, of the Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester (England), noted: “This is a major advance on prior long COVID prevalence estimates as it includes a matched uninfected group and accounts for symptoms before COVID-19 infection.”
 

Symptoms that persist

The Lancet study found that 3-5 months after COVID (compared with before COVID) and compared with the non-COVID comparison group, the symptoms that persist were chest pain, breathing difficulties, pain when breathing, muscle pain, loss of taste and/or smell, tingling extremities, lump in throat, feeling hot and cold alternately, heavy limbs, and tiredness.

The authors noted that symptoms such as brain fog were found to be relevant to long COVID after the data collection period for this paper and were not included in this research.

Researcher Aranka V. Ballering, MSc, PhD candidate, said in an interview that the researchers found fever is a symptom that is clearly present during the acute phase of the disease and it peaks the day of the COVID-19 diagnosis, but also wears off.

Loss of taste and smell, however, rapidly increases in severity when COVID-19 is diagnosed, but also persists and is still present 3-5 months after COVID.

Ms. Ballering, with the department of psychiatry at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), said she was surprised by the sex difference made evident in their research: “Women showed more severe persistent symptoms than men.”
 

Closer to a clearer definition

The authors said their findings also pinpoint symptoms that bring us closer to a better definition of long COVID, which has many different definitions globally.

“These symptoms have the highest discriminative ability to distinguish between post–COVID-19 condition and non–COVID-19–related symptoms,” they wrote.

Researchers collected data by asking participants in the northern Netherlands, who were part of the population-based Lifelines COVID-19 study, to regularly complete digital questionnaires on 23 symptoms commonly associated with long COVID. The questionnaire was sent out 24 times to the same people between March 2020 and August 2021. At that time, people had the Alpha or earlier variants.

Participants were considered COVID-19 positive if they had either a positive test or a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19.

Of 76,422 study participants, the 5.5% (4,231) who had COVID were matched to 8,462 controls. Researchers accounted for sex, age, and time of completing questionnaires.
 

Effect of hospitalization, vaccination unclear

Ms. Ballering said it’s unclear from this data whether vaccination or whether a person was hospitalized would change the prevalence of persistent symptoms.

Because of the period when the data were collected, “the vast majority of our study population was not fully vaccinated,” she said.

However, she pointed to recent research that shows that immunization against COVID is only partially effective against persistent somatic symptoms after COVID.

Also, only 5% of men and 2.5% of women in the study were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, so the findings can’t easily be generalized to hospitalized patients.

The Lifelines study was an add-on study to the multidisciplinary, prospective, population-based, observational Dutch Lifelines cohort study examining 167,729 people in the Netherlands. Almost all were White, a limitation of the study, and 58% were female. Average age was 54.

The editorialists also noted additional limitations of the study were that this research “did not fully consider the impact on mental health” and was conducted in one region in the Netherlands.

Janko Nikolich-Žugich, MD, PhD, director of the Aegis Consortium for Pandemic-Free Future and head of the immunobiology department at University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that he agreed with the editorialists that a primary benefit of this study is that it corrected for symptoms people had before COVID, something other studies have not been able to do.

However, he cautioned about generalizing the results for the United States and other countries because of the lack of diversity in the study population with regard to education level, socioeconomic factors, and race. He pointed out that access issues are also different in the Netherlands, which has universal health care.

He said brain fog as a symptom of long COVID is of high interest and will be important to include in future studies that are able to extend the study period.

The work was funded by ZonMw; the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen; and the provinces of Drenthe, Friesland, and Groningen. The study authors and Dr. Nikolich-Žugich have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brightling has received consultancy and or grants paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Mologic, and 4DPharma for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research. Dr. Evans has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca on the topic of long COVID and from GlaxoSmithKline on digital health, and speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim on long COVID.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

When Joel Fram woke up on the morning of March 12, 2020, he had a pretty good idea why he felt so lousy.

He lives in New York, where the first wave of the coronavirus was tearing through the city. “I instantly knew,” said the 55-year-old Broadway music director. It was COVID-19.

What started with a general sense of having been hit by a truck soon included a sore throat and such severe fatigue that he once fell asleep in the middle of sending a text to his sister. The final symptoms were chest tightness and trouble breathing.

And then he started to feel better. “By mid-April, my body was feeling essentially back to normal,” he said.

So he did what would have been smart after almost any other illness: He began working out. That didn’t last long. “It felt like someone pulled the carpet out from under me,” he remembered. “I couldn’t walk three blocks without getting breathless and fatigued.”

That was the first indication Mr. Fram had long COVID.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, at least 7.5% of American adults – close to 20 million people – have symptoms of long COVID. And for almost all of those people, a growing body of evidence shows that exercise will make their symptoms worse.

COVID-19 patients who had the most severe illness will struggle the most with exercise later, according to a review published in June from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. But even people with mild symptoms can struggle to regain their previous levels of fitness.

“We have participants in our study who had relatively mild acute symptoms and went on to have really profound decreases in their ability to exercise,” said Matthew S. Durstenfeld, MD, a cardiologist at UCSF and principal author of the review.

Most people with long COVID will have lower-than-expected scores on tests of aerobic fitness, as shown by Yale researchers in a study published in August 2021.

“Some amount of that is due to deconditioning,” Dr. Durstenfeld said. “You’re not feeling well, so you’re not exercising to the same degree you might have been before you got infected.”

In a study published in April, people with long COVID told researchers at Britain’s University of Leeds they spent 93% less time in physical activity than they did before their infection.

But multiple studies have found deconditioning is not entirely – or even mostly – to blame.

A 2021 study found that 89% of participants with long COVID had postexertional malaise (PEM), which happens when a patient’s symptoms get worse after they do even minor physical or mental activities. According to the CDC, postexertional malaise can hit as long as 12-48 hours after the activity, and it can take people up to 2 weeks to fully recover.

Unfortunately, the advice patients get from their doctors sometimes makes the problem worse.
 

How long COVID defies simple solutions

Long COVID is a “dynamic disability” that requires health professionals to go off script when a patient’s symptoms don’t respond in a predictable way to treatment, said David Putrino, PhD, a neuroscientist, physical therapist, and director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

“We’re not so good at dealing with somebody who, for all intents and purposes, can appear healthy and nondisabled on one day and be completely debilitated the next day,” he said.

Dr. Putrino said more than half of his clinic’s long-COVID patients told his team they had at least one of these persistent problems:

• Fatigue (82%).
• Brain fog (67%).
• Headache (60%).
• Sleep problems (59%).
• Dizziness (54%).

And 86% said exercise worsened their symptoms.

The symptoms are similar to what doctors see with illnesses such as lupus, Lyme disease, and chronic fatigue syndrome – something many experts compare long COVID to. Researchers and medical professionals still don’t know exactly how COVID-19 causes those symptoms. But there are some theories.
 

Potential causes of long-COVID symptoms

Dr. Putrino said it is possible the virus enters a patient’s cells and hijacks the mitochondria – a part of the cell that provides energy. It can linger there for weeks or months – something known as viral persistence.

“All of a sudden, the body’s getting less energy for itself, even though it’s producing the same amount, or even a little more,” he said. And there is a consequence to this extra stress on the cells. “Creating energy isn’t free. You’re producing more waste products, which puts your body in a state of oxidative stress,” Dr. Putrino said. Oxidative stress damages cells as molecules interact with oxygen in harmful ways.

“The other big mechanism is autonomic dysfunction,” Dr. Putrino said. It’s marked by breathing problems, heart palpitations, and other glitches in areas most healthy people never have to think about. About 70% of long-COVID patients at Mount Sinai’s clinic have some degree of autonomic dysfunction, he said.

For a person with autonomic dysfunction, something as basic as changing posture can trigger a storm of cytokines, a chemical messenger that tells the immune system where and how to respond to challenges like an injury or infection.

“Suddenly, you have this on-off switch,” Dr. Putrino said. “You go straight to ‘fight or flight,’ ” with a surge of adrenaline and a spiking heart rate, “then plunge back to ‘rest or digest.’ You go from fired up to so sleepy, you can’t keep your eyes open.”

A patient with viral persistence and one with autonomic dysfunction may have the same negative reaction to exercise, even though the triggers are completely different.
 

So how can doctors help long-COVID patients?

The first step, Dr. Putrino said, is to understand the difference between long COVID and a long recovery from COVID-19 infection.

Many of the patients in the latter group still have symptoms 4 weeks after their first infection. “At 4 weeks, yeah, they’re still feeling symptoms, but that’s not long COVID,” he said. “That’s just taking a while to get over a viral infection.”

Fitness advice is simple for those people: Take it easy at first, and gradually increase the amount and intensity of aerobic exercise and strength training.

But that advice would be disastrous for someone who meets Dr. Putrino’s stricter definition of long COVID: “Three to 4 months out from initial infection, they’re experiencing severe fatigue, exertional symptoms, cognitive symptoms, heart palpitations, shortness of breath,” he said.

“Our clinic is extraordinarily cautious with exercise” for those patients, he said.

In Dr. Putrino’s experience, about 20%-30% of patients will make significant progress after 12 weeks. “They’re feeling more or less like they felt pre-COVID,” he said.

The unluckiest 10%-20% won’t make any progress at all. Any type of therapy, even if it’s as simple as moving their legs from a flat position, worsens their symptoms.

The majority – 50%-60% – will have some improvement in their symptoms. But then progress will stop, for reasons researchers are still trying to figure out.

“My sense is that gradually increasing your exercise is still good advice for the vast majority of people,” UCSF’s Dr. Durstenfeld said.

Ideally, that exercise will be supervised by someone trained in cardiac, pulmonary, and/or autonomic rehabilitation – a specialized type of therapy aimed at resyncing the autonomic nervous system that governs breathing and other unconscious functions, he said. But those therapies are rarely covered by insurance, which means most long-COVID patients are on their own.

Dr. Durstenfeld said it’s important that patients keep trying and not give up. “With slow and steady progress, a lot of people can get profoundly better,” he said.

Mr. Fram, who’s worked with careful supervision, says he’s getting closer to something like his pre-COVID-19 life.

But he’s not there yet. Long COVID, he said, “affects my life every single day.”

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

When Joel Fram woke up on the morning of March 12, 2020, he had a pretty good idea why he felt so lousy.

He lives in New York, where the first wave of the coronavirus was tearing through the city. “I instantly knew,” said the 55-year-old Broadway music director. It was COVID-19.

What started with a general sense of having been hit by a truck soon included a sore throat and such severe fatigue that he once fell asleep in the middle of sending a text to his sister. The final symptoms were chest tightness and trouble breathing.

And then he started to feel better. “By mid-April, my body was feeling essentially back to normal,” he said.

So he did what would have been smart after almost any other illness: He began working out. That didn’t last long. “It felt like someone pulled the carpet out from under me,” he remembered. “I couldn’t walk three blocks without getting breathless and fatigued.”

That was the first indication Mr. Fram had long COVID.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, at least 7.5% of American adults – close to 20 million people – have symptoms of long COVID. And for almost all of those people, a growing body of evidence shows that exercise will make their symptoms worse.

COVID-19 patients who had the most severe illness will struggle the most with exercise later, according to a review published in June from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. But even people with mild symptoms can struggle to regain their previous levels of fitness.

“We have participants in our study who had relatively mild acute symptoms and went on to have really profound decreases in their ability to exercise,” said Matthew S. Durstenfeld, MD, a cardiologist at UCSF and principal author of the review.

Most people with long COVID will have lower-than-expected scores on tests of aerobic fitness, as shown by Yale researchers in a study published in August 2021.

“Some amount of that is due to deconditioning,” Dr. Durstenfeld said. “You’re not feeling well, so you’re not exercising to the same degree you might have been before you got infected.”

In a study published in April, people with long COVID told researchers at Britain’s University of Leeds they spent 93% less time in physical activity than they did before their infection.

But multiple studies have found deconditioning is not entirely – or even mostly – to blame.

A 2021 study found that 89% of participants with long COVID had postexertional malaise (PEM), which happens when a patient’s symptoms get worse after they do even minor physical or mental activities. According to the CDC, postexertional malaise can hit as long as 12-48 hours after the activity, and it can take people up to 2 weeks to fully recover.

Unfortunately, the advice patients get from their doctors sometimes makes the problem worse.
 

How long COVID defies simple solutions

Long COVID is a “dynamic disability” that requires health professionals to go off script when a patient’s symptoms don’t respond in a predictable way to treatment, said David Putrino, PhD, a neuroscientist, physical therapist, and director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

“We’re not so good at dealing with somebody who, for all intents and purposes, can appear healthy and nondisabled on one day and be completely debilitated the next day,” he said.

Dr. Putrino said more than half of his clinic’s long-COVID patients told his team they had at least one of these persistent problems:

• Fatigue (82%).
• Brain fog (67%).
• Headache (60%).
• Sleep problems (59%).
• Dizziness (54%).

And 86% said exercise worsened their symptoms.

The symptoms are similar to what doctors see with illnesses such as lupus, Lyme disease, and chronic fatigue syndrome – something many experts compare long COVID to. Researchers and medical professionals still don’t know exactly how COVID-19 causes those symptoms. But there are some theories.
 

Potential causes of long-COVID symptoms

Dr. Putrino said it is possible the virus enters a patient’s cells and hijacks the mitochondria – a part of the cell that provides energy. It can linger there for weeks or months – something known as viral persistence.

“All of a sudden, the body’s getting less energy for itself, even though it’s producing the same amount, or even a little more,” he said. And there is a consequence to this extra stress on the cells. “Creating energy isn’t free. You’re producing more waste products, which puts your body in a state of oxidative stress,” Dr. Putrino said. Oxidative stress damages cells as molecules interact with oxygen in harmful ways.

“The other big mechanism is autonomic dysfunction,” Dr. Putrino said. It’s marked by breathing problems, heart palpitations, and other glitches in areas most healthy people never have to think about. About 70% of long-COVID patients at Mount Sinai’s clinic have some degree of autonomic dysfunction, he said.

For a person with autonomic dysfunction, something as basic as changing posture can trigger a storm of cytokines, a chemical messenger that tells the immune system where and how to respond to challenges like an injury or infection.

“Suddenly, you have this on-off switch,” Dr. Putrino said. “You go straight to ‘fight or flight,’ ” with a surge of adrenaline and a spiking heart rate, “then plunge back to ‘rest or digest.’ You go from fired up to so sleepy, you can’t keep your eyes open.”

A patient with viral persistence and one with autonomic dysfunction may have the same negative reaction to exercise, even though the triggers are completely different.
 

So how can doctors help long-COVID patients?

The first step, Dr. Putrino said, is to understand the difference between long COVID and a long recovery from COVID-19 infection.

Many of the patients in the latter group still have symptoms 4 weeks after their first infection. “At 4 weeks, yeah, they’re still feeling symptoms, but that’s not long COVID,” he said. “That’s just taking a while to get over a viral infection.”

Fitness advice is simple for those people: Take it easy at first, and gradually increase the amount and intensity of aerobic exercise and strength training.

But that advice would be disastrous for someone who meets Dr. Putrino’s stricter definition of long COVID: “Three to 4 months out from initial infection, they’re experiencing severe fatigue, exertional symptoms, cognitive symptoms, heart palpitations, shortness of breath,” he said.

“Our clinic is extraordinarily cautious with exercise” for those patients, he said.

In Dr. Putrino’s experience, about 20%-30% of patients will make significant progress after 12 weeks. “They’re feeling more or less like they felt pre-COVID,” he said.

The unluckiest 10%-20% won’t make any progress at all. Any type of therapy, even if it’s as simple as moving their legs from a flat position, worsens their symptoms.

The majority – 50%-60% – will have some improvement in their symptoms. But then progress will stop, for reasons researchers are still trying to figure out.

“My sense is that gradually increasing your exercise is still good advice for the vast majority of people,” UCSF’s Dr. Durstenfeld said.

Ideally, that exercise will be supervised by someone trained in cardiac, pulmonary, and/or autonomic rehabilitation – a specialized type of therapy aimed at resyncing the autonomic nervous system that governs breathing and other unconscious functions, he said. But those therapies are rarely covered by insurance, which means most long-COVID patients are on their own.

Dr. Durstenfeld said it’s important that patients keep trying and not give up. “With slow and steady progress, a lot of people can get profoundly better,” he said.

Mr. Fram, who’s worked with careful supervision, says he’s getting closer to something like his pre-COVID-19 life.

But he’s not there yet. Long COVID, he said, “affects my life every single day.”

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

When Joel Fram woke up on the morning of March 12, 2020, he had a pretty good idea why he felt so lousy.

He lives in New York, where the first wave of the coronavirus was tearing through the city. “I instantly knew,” said the 55-year-old Broadway music director. It was COVID-19.

What started with a general sense of having been hit by a truck soon included a sore throat and such severe fatigue that he once fell asleep in the middle of sending a text to his sister. The final symptoms were chest tightness and trouble breathing.

And then he started to feel better. “By mid-April, my body was feeling essentially back to normal,” he said.

So he did what would have been smart after almost any other illness: He began working out. That didn’t last long. “It felt like someone pulled the carpet out from under me,” he remembered. “I couldn’t walk three blocks without getting breathless and fatigued.”

That was the first indication Mr. Fram had long COVID.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, at least 7.5% of American adults – close to 20 million people – have symptoms of long COVID. And for almost all of those people, a growing body of evidence shows that exercise will make their symptoms worse.

COVID-19 patients who had the most severe illness will struggle the most with exercise later, according to a review published in June from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. But even people with mild symptoms can struggle to regain their previous levels of fitness.

“We have participants in our study who had relatively mild acute symptoms and went on to have really profound decreases in their ability to exercise,” said Matthew S. Durstenfeld, MD, a cardiologist at UCSF and principal author of the review.

Most people with long COVID will have lower-than-expected scores on tests of aerobic fitness, as shown by Yale researchers in a study published in August 2021.

“Some amount of that is due to deconditioning,” Dr. Durstenfeld said. “You’re not feeling well, so you’re not exercising to the same degree you might have been before you got infected.”

In a study published in April, people with long COVID told researchers at Britain’s University of Leeds they spent 93% less time in physical activity than they did before their infection.

But multiple studies have found deconditioning is not entirely – or even mostly – to blame.

A 2021 study found that 89% of participants with long COVID had postexertional malaise (PEM), which happens when a patient’s symptoms get worse after they do even minor physical or mental activities. According to the CDC, postexertional malaise can hit as long as 12-48 hours after the activity, and it can take people up to 2 weeks to fully recover.

Unfortunately, the advice patients get from their doctors sometimes makes the problem worse.
 

How long COVID defies simple solutions

Long COVID is a “dynamic disability” that requires health professionals to go off script when a patient’s symptoms don’t respond in a predictable way to treatment, said David Putrino, PhD, a neuroscientist, physical therapist, and director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

“We’re not so good at dealing with somebody who, for all intents and purposes, can appear healthy and nondisabled on one day and be completely debilitated the next day,” he said.

Dr. Putrino said more than half of his clinic’s long-COVID patients told his team they had at least one of these persistent problems:

• Fatigue (82%).
• Brain fog (67%).
• Headache (60%).
• Sleep problems (59%).
• Dizziness (54%).

And 86% said exercise worsened their symptoms.

The symptoms are similar to what doctors see with illnesses such as lupus, Lyme disease, and chronic fatigue syndrome – something many experts compare long COVID to. Researchers and medical professionals still don’t know exactly how COVID-19 causes those symptoms. But there are some theories.
 

Potential causes of long-COVID symptoms

Dr. Putrino said it is possible the virus enters a patient’s cells and hijacks the mitochondria – a part of the cell that provides energy. It can linger there for weeks or months – something known as viral persistence.

“All of a sudden, the body’s getting less energy for itself, even though it’s producing the same amount, or even a little more,” he said. And there is a consequence to this extra stress on the cells. “Creating energy isn’t free. You’re producing more waste products, which puts your body in a state of oxidative stress,” Dr. Putrino said. Oxidative stress damages cells as molecules interact with oxygen in harmful ways.

“The other big mechanism is autonomic dysfunction,” Dr. Putrino said. It’s marked by breathing problems, heart palpitations, and other glitches in areas most healthy people never have to think about. About 70% of long-COVID patients at Mount Sinai’s clinic have some degree of autonomic dysfunction, he said.

For a person with autonomic dysfunction, something as basic as changing posture can trigger a storm of cytokines, a chemical messenger that tells the immune system where and how to respond to challenges like an injury or infection.

“Suddenly, you have this on-off switch,” Dr. Putrino said. “You go straight to ‘fight or flight,’ ” with a surge of adrenaline and a spiking heart rate, “then plunge back to ‘rest or digest.’ You go from fired up to so sleepy, you can’t keep your eyes open.”

A patient with viral persistence and one with autonomic dysfunction may have the same negative reaction to exercise, even though the triggers are completely different.