User login
A new (old) drug joins the COVID fray, and guess what? It works
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
At this point, with the monoclonals found to be essentially useless, we are left with remdesivir with its modest efficacy and Paxlovid, which, for some reason, people don’t seem to be taking.
Part of the reason the monoclonals have failed lately is because of their specificity; they are homogeneous antibodies targeted toward a very specific epitope that may change from variant to variant. We need a broader therapeutic, one that has activity across all variants — maybe even one that has activity against all viruses? We’ve got one. Interferon.
The first mention of interferon as a potential COVID therapy was at the very start of the pandemic, so I’m sort of surprised that the first large, randomized trial is only being reported now in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Before we dig into the results, let’s talk mechanism. This is a trial of interferon-lambda, also known as interleukin-29.
The lambda interferons were only discovered in 2003. They differ from the more familiar interferons only in their cellular receptors; the downstream effects seem quite similar. As opposed to the cellular receptors for interferon alfa, which are widely expressed, the receptors for lambda are restricted to epithelial tissues. This makes it a good choice as a COVID treatment, since the virus also preferentially targets those epithelial cells.
In this study, 1,951 participants from Brazil and Canada, but mostly Brazil, with new COVID infections who were not yet hospitalized were randomized to receive 180 mcg of interferon lambda or placebo.
This was a relatively current COVID trial, as you can see from the participant characteristics. The majority had been vaccinated, and nearly half of the infections were during the Omicron phase of the pandemic.
If you just want to cut to the chase, interferon worked.
The primary outcome – hospitalization or a prolonged emergency room visit for COVID – was 50% lower in the interferon group.
Key secondary outcomes, including death from COVID, were lower in the interferon group as well. These effects persisted across most of the subgroups I was looking out for.
Interferon seemed to help those who were already vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated. There’s a hint that it works better within the first few days of symptoms, which isn’t surprising; we’ve seen this for many of the therapeutics, including Paxlovid. Time is of the essence. Encouragingly, the effect was a bit more pronounced among those infected with Omicron.
Of course, if you have any experience with interferon, you know that the side effects can be pretty rough. In the bad old days when we treated hepatitis C infection with interferon, patients would get their injections on Friday in anticipation of being essentially out of commission with flu-like symptoms through the weekend. But we don’t see much evidence of adverse events in this trial, maybe due to the greater specificity of interferon lambda.
Putting it all together, the state of play for interferons in COVID may be changing. To date, the FDA has not recommended the use of interferon alfa or -beta for COVID-19, citing some data that they are ineffective or even harmful in hospitalized patients with COVID. Interferon lambda is not FDA approved and thus not even available in the United States. But the reason it has not been approved is that there has not been a large, well-conducted interferon lambda trial. Now there is. Will this study be enough to prompt an emergency use authorization? The elephant in the room, of course, is Paxlovid, which at this point has a longer safety track record and, importantly, is oral. I’d love to see a head-to-head trial. Short of that, I tend to be in favor of having more options on the table.
Dr. Perry Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
At this point, with the monoclonals found to be essentially useless, we are left with remdesivir with its modest efficacy and Paxlovid, which, for some reason, people don’t seem to be taking.
Part of the reason the monoclonals have failed lately is because of their specificity; they are homogeneous antibodies targeted toward a very specific epitope that may change from variant to variant. We need a broader therapeutic, one that has activity across all variants — maybe even one that has activity against all viruses? We’ve got one. Interferon.
The first mention of interferon as a potential COVID therapy was at the very start of the pandemic, so I’m sort of surprised that the first large, randomized trial is only being reported now in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Before we dig into the results, let’s talk mechanism. This is a trial of interferon-lambda, also known as interleukin-29.
The lambda interferons were only discovered in 2003. They differ from the more familiar interferons only in their cellular receptors; the downstream effects seem quite similar. As opposed to the cellular receptors for interferon alfa, which are widely expressed, the receptors for lambda are restricted to epithelial tissues. This makes it a good choice as a COVID treatment, since the virus also preferentially targets those epithelial cells.
In this study, 1,951 participants from Brazil and Canada, but mostly Brazil, with new COVID infections who were not yet hospitalized were randomized to receive 180 mcg of interferon lambda or placebo.
This was a relatively current COVID trial, as you can see from the participant characteristics. The majority had been vaccinated, and nearly half of the infections were during the Omicron phase of the pandemic.
If you just want to cut to the chase, interferon worked.
The primary outcome – hospitalization or a prolonged emergency room visit for COVID – was 50% lower in the interferon group.
Key secondary outcomes, including death from COVID, were lower in the interferon group as well. These effects persisted across most of the subgroups I was looking out for.
Interferon seemed to help those who were already vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated. There’s a hint that it works better within the first few days of symptoms, which isn’t surprising; we’ve seen this for many of the therapeutics, including Paxlovid. Time is of the essence. Encouragingly, the effect was a bit more pronounced among those infected with Omicron.
Of course, if you have any experience with interferon, you know that the side effects can be pretty rough. In the bad old days when we treated hepatitis C infection with interferon, patients would get their injections on Friday in anticipation of being essentially out of commission with flu-like symptoms through the weekend. But we don’t see much evidence of adverse events in this trial, maybe due to the greater specificity of interferon lambda.
Putting it all together, the state of play for interferons in COVID may be changing. To date, the FDA has not recommended the use of interferon alfa or -beta for COVID-19, citing some data that they are ineffective or even harmful in hospitalized patients with COVID. Interferon lambda is not FDA approved and thus not even available in the United States. But the reason it has not been approved is that there has not been a large, well-conducted interferon lambda trial. Now there is. Will this study be enough to prompt an emergency use authorization? The elephant in the room, of course, is Paxlovid, which at this point has a longer safety track record and, importantly, is oral. I’d love to see a head-to-head trial. Short of that, I tend to be in favor of having more options on the table.
Dr. Perry Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
At this point, with the monoclonals found to be essentially useless, we are left with remdesivir with its modest efficacy and Paxlovid, which, for some reason, people don’t seem to be taking.
Part of the reason the monoclonals have failed lately is because of their specificity; they are homogeneous antibodies targeted toward a very specific epitope that may change from variant to variant. We need a broader therapeutic, one that has activity across all variants — maybe even one that has activity against all viruses? We’ve got one. Interferon.
The first mention of interferon as a potential COVID therapy was at the very start of the pandemic, so I’m sort of surprised that the first large, randomized trial is only being reported now in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Before we dig into the results, let’s talk mechanism. This is a trial of interferon-lambda, also known as interleukin-29.
The lambda interferons were only discovered in 2003. They differ from the more familiar interferons only in their cellular receptors; the downstream effects seem quite similar. As opposed to the cellular receptors for interferon alfa, which are widely expressed, the receptors for lambda are restricted to epithelial tissues. This makes it a good choice as a COVID treatment, since the virus also preferentially targets those epithelial cells.
In this study, 1,951 participants from Brazil and Canada, but mostly Brazil, with new COVID infections who were not yet hospitalized were randomized to receive 180 mcg of interferon lambda or placebo.
This was a relatively current COVID trial, as you can see from the participant characteristics. The majority had been vaccinated, and nearly half of the infections were during the Omicron phase of the pandemic.
If you just want to cut to the chase, interferon worked.
The primary outcome – hospitalization or a prolonged emergency room visit for COVID – was 50% lower in the interferon group.
Key secondary outcomes, including death from COVID, were lower in the interferon group as well. These effects persisted across most of the subgroups I was looking out for.
Interferon seemed to help those who were already vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated. There’s a hint that it works better within the first few days of symptoms, which isn’t surprising; we’ve seen this for many of the therapeutics, including Paxlovid. Time is of the essence. Encouragingly, the effect was a bit more pronounced among those infected with Omicron.
Of course, if you have any experience with interferon, you know that the side effects can be pretty rough. In the bad old days when we treated hepatitis C infection with interferon, patients would get their injections on Friday in anticipation of being essentially out of commission with flu-like symptoms through the weekend. But we don’t see much evidence of adverse events in this trial, maybe due to the greater specificity of interferon lambda.
Putting it all together, the state of play for interferons in COVID may be changing. To date, the FDA has not recommended the use of interferon alfa or -beta for COVID-19, citing some data that they are ineffective or even harmful in hospitalized patients with COVID. Interferon lambda is not FDA approved and thus not even available in the United States. But the reason it has not been approved is that there has not been a large, well-conducted interferon lambda trial. Now there is. Will this study be enough to prompt an emergency use authorization? The elephant in the room, of course, is Paxlovid, which at this point has a longer safety track record and, importantly, is oral. I’d love to see a head-to-head trial. Short of that, I tend to be in favor of having more options on the table.
Dr. Perry Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Maternal COVID-19 vaccine curbs infant infection
a new study shows.
Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.
In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.
Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.
Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.
The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.
The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).
Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.
The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.
The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.
The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).
Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.
Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.
Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed
The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.
They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.
Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.
The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.
Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.
“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.
The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.
a new study shows.
Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.
In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.
Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.
Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.
The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.
The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).
Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.
The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.
The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.
The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).
Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.
Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.
Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed
The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.
They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.
Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.
The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.
Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.
“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.
The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.
a new study shows.
Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.
In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.
Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.
Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.
The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.
The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).
Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.
The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.
The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.
The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).
Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.
Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.
Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed
The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.
They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.
Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.
The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.
Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.
“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.
The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.
FROM THE BMJ
Acute cardiac events common during COVID hospitalization
particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.
“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.
Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”
However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”
The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Underlying cardiac disease key
Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.
Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.
As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).
Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.
Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.
In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).
Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.
“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.
The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
Contemporary data needed
James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.
“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.
“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.
In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”
“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”
No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.
“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.
Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”
However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”
The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Underlying cardiac disease key
Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.
Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.
As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).
Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.
Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.
In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).
Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.
“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.
The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
Contemporary data needed
James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.
“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.
“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.
In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”
“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”
No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.
“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.
Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”
However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”
The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Underlying cardiac disease key
Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.
Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.
As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).
Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.
Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.
In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).
Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.
“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.
The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
Contemporary data needed
James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.
“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.
“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.
In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”
“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”
No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
A technicality could keep RSV shots from kids in need
which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.
But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.
Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.
The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.
But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.
Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.
Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.
Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.
Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.
After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.
Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.
Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.
If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.
Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.
While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.
A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.
Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”
Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.
New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.
Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.
On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.
While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”
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.
which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.
But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.
Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.
The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.
But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.
Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.
Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.
Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.
Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.
After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.
Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.
Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.
If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.
Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.
While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.
A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.
Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”
Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.
New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.
Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.
On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.
While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”
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.
which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.
But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.
Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.
The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.
But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.
Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.
Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.
Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.
Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.
After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.
Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.
Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.
If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.
Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.
While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.
A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.
Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”
Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.
New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.
Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.
On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.
While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”
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.
COVID emergency orders ending: What’s next?
It’s the end of an era.
The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11.
Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes.
Changes that affect everyone
- There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11.
- Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
- Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
- Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.
Changes that affect people with private health insurance
- Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
- COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
- You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.
Changes that affect Medicare recipients
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes.
- Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals.
Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients
- Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
- The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.
Changes that affect uninsured people
- The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing).
Changes that affect health care providers
- There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.
What the experts are saying
This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision.
Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?
Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.”
Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”
Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”
Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”
Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean?
A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”
Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems?
A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected.
“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”
A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”
Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have?
A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.
Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic?
A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It’s the end of an era.
The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11.
Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes.
Changes that affect everyone
- There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11.
- Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
- Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
- Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.
Changes that affect people with private health insurance
- Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
- COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
- You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.
Changes that affect Medicare recipients
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes.
- Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals.
Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients
- Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
- The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.
Changes that affect uninsured people
- The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing).
Changes that affect health care providers
- There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.
What the experts are saying
This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision.
Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?
Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.”
Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”
Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”
Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”
Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean?
A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”
Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems?
A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected.
“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”
A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”
Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have?
A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.
Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic?
A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It’s the end of an era.
The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11.
Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes.
Changes that affect everyone
- There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11.
- Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
- Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
- Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.
Changes that affect people with private health insurance
- Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
- COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
- You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.
Changes that affect Medicare recipients
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes.
- Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals.
Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients
- Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
- The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.
Changes that affect uninsured people
- The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing).
Changes that affect health care providers
- There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.
What the experts are saying
This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision.
Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?
Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.”
Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”
Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”
Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”
Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean?
A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”
Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems?
A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected.
“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”
A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”
Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have?
A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.
Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic?
A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Washington medical board charges doctor with spreading COVID misinformation
Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.
Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.
Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
Cavalcade of complaints
Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”
As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.
The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.
In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.
Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.
“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”
If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.
“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
Law in limbo
While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.
The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.
Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.
Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.
Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
Cavalcade of complaints
Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”
As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.
The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.
In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.
Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.
“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”
If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.
“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
Law in limbo
While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.
The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.
Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.
Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.
Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
Cavalcade of complaints
Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”
As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.
The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.
In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.
Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.
“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”
If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.
“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
Law in limbo
While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.
The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.
Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Managing respiratory symptoms in the ‘tripledemic’ era
Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.
Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.
It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.
These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.
Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.
But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.
However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.
Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.
I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.
Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.
My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.
Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.
Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.
Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.
It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.
These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.
Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.
But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.
However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.
Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.
I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.
Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.
My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.
Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.
Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.
Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.
It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.
These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.
Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.
But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.
However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.
Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.
I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.
Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.
My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.
Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.
Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long COVID affecting more than one-third of college students, faculty
With a median age of 23 years, the study is unique for evaluating mostly healthy, young adults and for its rare look at long COVID in a university community.
The more symptoms during a bout with COVID, the greater the risk for long COVID, the researchers found. That lines up with previous studies. Also, the more vaccinations and booster shots against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, the lower the long COVID risk.
Women were more likely than men to be affected. Current or prior smoking, seeking medical care for COVID, and receiving antibody treatment also were linked to higher chances for developing long COVID.
Lead author Megan Landry, DrPH, MPH, and colleagues were already assessing students, staff, and faculty at George Washington University, Washington, who tested positive for COVID. Then they started seeing symptoms that lasted 28 days or more after their 10-day isolation period.
“We were starting to recognize that individuals ... were still having symptoms longer than the typical isolation period,” said Dr. Landry. So they developed a questionnaire to figure out the how long these symptoms last and how many people are affected by them.
The list of potential symptoms was long and included trouble thinking, fatigue, loss of smell or taste, shortness of breath, and more.
The study was published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. Results are based on records and responses from 1,388 students, faculty, and staff from July 2021 to March 2022.
People had a median of four long COVID symptoms, about 63% were women, and 56% were non-Hispanic White. About three-quarters were students and the remainder were faculty and staff.
The finding that 36% of people with a history of COVID reported long COVID symptoms did not surprise Dr. Landry.
“Based on the literature that’s currently out there, it ranges from a 10% to an 80% prevalence of long COVID,” she said. “We kind of figured that we would fall somewhere in there.”
In contrast, that figure seemed high to Eric Topol, MD.
“That’s really high,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He added most studies estimate that about 10% of people with a history of acute infection develop long COVID.
Even at 10%, which could be an underestimate, that’s a lot of affected people globally.
“At least 65 million individuals around the world have long COVID, based on a conservative estimated incidence of 10% of infected people and more than 651 million documented COVID-19 cases worldwide; the number is likely much higher due to many undocumented cases,” Dr. Topol and colleagues wrote in a long COVID review article published in Nature Reviews Microbiology.
About 30% of study participants were fully vaccinated with an initial vaccine series, 42% had received a booster dose, and 29% were not fully vaccinated at the time of their first positive test for COVID. Those who were not fully vaccinated were significantly more likely to report symptoms of long COVID.
“I know a lot of people wish they could put COVID on the back burner or brush it under the rug, but COVID is still a real thing. We need to continue supporting vaccines and boosters and make sure people are up to date. Not only for COVID, but for flu as well,” Dr. Topol said
Research continues
“Long COVID is still evolving and we continue to learn more about it every day,” Landry said. “It’s just so new and there are still a lot of unknowns. That’s why it’s important to get this information out.”
People with long COVID often have a hard time with occupational, educational, social, or personal activities, compared with before COVID, with effects that can last for more than 6 months, the authors noted.
“I think across the board, universities in general need to consider the possibility of folks on their campuses are having symptoms of long COVID,” Dr. Landry said.
Moving forward, Dr. Landry and colleagues would like to continue investigating long COVID. For example, in the current study, they did not ask about severity of symptoms or how the symptoms affected daily functioning.
“I would like to continue this and dive deeper into how disruptive their symptoms of long COVID are to their everyday studying, teaching, or their activities to keeping a university running,” Dr. Landry said.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
With a median age of 23 years, the study is unique for evaluating mostly healthy, young adults and for its rare look at long COVID in a university community.
The more symptoms during a bout with COVID, the greater the risk for long COVID, the researchers found. That lines up with previous studies. Also, the more vaccinations and booster shots against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, the lower the long COVID risk.
Women were more likely than men to be affected. Current or prior smoking, seeking medical care for COVID, and receiving antibody treatment also were linked to higher chances for developing long COVID.
Lead author Megan Landry, DrPH, MPH, and colleagues were already assessing students, staff, and faculty at George Washington University, Washington, who tested positive for COVID. Then they started seeing symptoms that lasted 28 days or more after their 10-day isolation period.
“We were starting to recognize that individuals ... were still having symptoms longer than the typical isolation period,” said Dr. Landry. So they developed a questionnaire to figure out the how long these symptoms last and how many people are affected by them.
The list of potential symptoms was long and included trouble thinking, fatigue, loss of smell or taste, shortness of breath, and more.
The study was published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. Results are based on records and responses from 1,388 students, faculty, and staff from July 2021 to March 2022.
People had a median of four long COVID symptoms, about 63% were women, and 56% were non-Hispanic White. About three-quarters were students and the remainder were faculty and staff.
The finding that 36% of people with a history of COVID reported long COVID symptoms did not surprise Dr. Landry.
“Based on the literature that’s currently out there, it ranges from a 10% to an 80% prevalence of long COVID,” she said. “We kind of figured that we would fall somewhere in there.”
In contrast, that figure seemed high to Eric Topol, MD.
“That’s really high,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He added most studies estimate that about 10% of people with a history of acute infection develop long COVID.
Even at 10%, which could be an underestimate, that’s a lot of affected people globally.
“At least 65 million individuals around the world have long COVID, based on a conservative estimated incidence of 10% of infected people and more than 651 million documented COVID-19 cases worldwide; the number is likely much higher due to many undocumented cases,” Dr. Topol and colleagues wrote in a long COVID review article published in Nature Reviews Microbiology.
About 30% of study participants were fully vaccinated with an initial vaccine series, 42% had received a booster dose, and 29% were not fully vaccinated at the time of their first positive test for COVID. Those who were not fully vaccinated were significantly more likely to report symptoms of long COVID.
“I know a lot of people wish they could put COVID on the back burner or brush it under the rug, but COVID is still a real thing. We need to continue supporting vaccines and boosters and make sure people are up to date. Not only for COVID, but for flu as well,” Dr. Topol said
Research continues
“Long COVID is still evolving and we continue to learn more about it every day,” Landry said. “It’s just so new and there are still a lot of unknowns. That’s why it’s important to get this information out.”
People with long COVID often have a hard time with occupational, educational, social, or personal activities, compared with before COVID, with effects that can last for more than 6 months, the authors noted.
“I think across the board, universities in general need to consider the possibility of folks on their campuses are having symptoms of long COVID,” Dr. Landry said.
Moving forward, Dr. Landry and colleagues would like to continue investigating long COVID. For example, in the current study, they did not ask about severity of symptoms or how the symptoms affected daily functioning.
“I would like to continue this and dive deeper into how disruptive their symptoms of long COVID are to their everyday studying, teaching, or their activities to keeping a university running,” Dr. Landry said.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
With a median age of 23 years, the study is unique for evaluating mostly healthy, young adults and for its rare look at long COVID in a university community.
The more symptoms during a bout with COVID, the greater the risk for long COVID, the researchers found. That lines up with previous studies. Also, the more vaccinations and booster shots against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, the lower the long COVID risk.
Women were more likely than men to be affected. Current or prior smoking, seeking medical care for COVID, and receiving antibody treatment also were linked to higher chances for developing long COVID.
Lead author Megan Landry, DrPH, MPH, and colleagues were already assessing students, staff, and faculty at George Washington University, Washington, who tested positive for COVID. Then they started seeing symptoms that lasted 28 days or more after their 10-day isolation period.
“We were starting to recognize that individuals ... were still having symptoms longer than the typical isolation period,” said Dr. Landry. So they developed a questionnaire to figure out the how long these symptoms last and how many people are affected by them.
The list of potential symptoms was long and included trouble thinking, fatigue, loss of smell or taste, shortness of breath, and more.
The study was published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. Results are based on records and responses from 1,388 students, faculty, and staff from July 2021 to March 2022.
People had a median of four long COVID symptoms, about 63% were women, and 56% were non-Hispanic White. About three-quarters were students and the remainder were faculty and staff.
The finding that 36% of people with a history of COVID reported long COVID symptoms did not surprise Dr. Landry.
“Based on the literature that’s currently out there, it ranges from a 10% to an 80% prevalence of long COVID,” she said. “We kind of figured that we would fall somewhere in there.”
In contrast, that figure seemed high to Eric Topol, MD.
“That’s really high,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He added most studies estimate that about 10% of people with a history of acute infection develop long COVID.
Even at 10%, which could be an underestimate, that’s a lot of affected people globally.
“At least 65 million individuals around the world have long COVID, based on a conservative estimated incidence of 10% of infected people and more than 651 million documented COVID-19 cases worldwide; the number is likely much higher due to many undocumented cases,” Dr. Topol and colleagues wrote in a long COVID review article published in Nature Reviews Microbiology.
About 30% of study participants were fully vaccinated with an initial vaccine series, 42% had received a booster dose, and 29% were not fully vaccinated at the time of their first positive test for COVID. Those who were not fully vaccinated were significantly more likely to report symptoms of long COVID.
“I know a lot of people wish they could put COVID on the back burner or brush it under the rug, but COVID is still a real thing. We need to continue supporting vaccines and boosters and make sure people are up to date. Not only for COVID, but for flu as well,” Dr. Topol said
Research continues
“Long COVID is still evolving and we continue to learn more about it every day,” Landry said. “It’s just so new and there are still a lot of unknowns. That’s why it’s important to get this information out.”
People with long COVID often have a hard time with occupational, educational, social, or personal activities, compared with before COVID, with effects that can last for more than 6 months, the authors noted.
“I think across the board, universities in general need to consider the possibility of folks on their campuses are having symptoms of long COVID,” Dr. Landry said.
Moving forward, Dr. Landry and colleagues would like to continue investigating long COVID. For example, in the current study, they did not ask about severity of symptoms or how the symptoms affected daily functioning.
“I would like to continue this and dive deeper into how disruptive their symptoms of long COVID are to their everyday studying, teaching, or their activities to keeping a university running,” Dr. Landry said.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Flu, other common viruses linked to neurologic disease
People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows.
The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.
The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders.
“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”
For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.
Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.
Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.
“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”
The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.
The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows.
The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.
The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders.
“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”
For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.
Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.
Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.
“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”
The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.
The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows.
The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.
The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders.
“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”
For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.
Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.
Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.
“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”
The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.
The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NEURON
FDA wants annual COVID boosters, just like annual flu shots
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases.
Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.
A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.
People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.
About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.
COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases.
Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.
A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.
People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.
About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.
COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases.
Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.
A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.
People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.
About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.
COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.