Lisa O’Mary

First, there were “Ozempic babies.” Now, there is also Ozempic-before-baby.

Unplanned pregnancies are still regularly being reported among people using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs, and now fertility specialists are increasingly incorporating the medicines into preconception care plans.

The specialists say their colleagues in other areas of medicine may have an opportunity, too, to talk about weight loss using these new drugs in terms of reproductive health. Motivation and compliance can transform when the goal isn’t simply weight loss but having children.

“We have this really special moment to help patients be healthier, in order to be healthier for their kids,” said Christina Boots, MD, MSci, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. “And I think that’s also a very motivating moment. It may be hard to get up and go for a run to make my jeans fit better, but when I think about it in terms of, ‘this might someday help my future daughter,’ that is a whole different level of motivation.”

Discussing obesity treatment can be a delicate conversation, but one that would be beneficial to have with any patient of reproductive age. Here’s why, what to know about the current lengthy list of unknowns and risks, and some options for approaching the topic with patients.
 

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

While overweight and obesity are consistently linked to fertility and pregnancy outcomes, Boots predicts the biggest impact of GLP-1 weight loss for fertility among women will be a specific subset: Those who are not cycling regularly, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

“The women who are cycling regularly who have very unexplained infertility and no other comorbidities like high blood pressure or something else going on, I don’t think it’s going to help their fertility very much at all,” she said “It might, but I think there’s probably something else going on in her tubes or with her eggs or his sperm, but it has nothing to do with her metabolic health.

Women who aren’t cycling regularly will benefit, but those with truly unexplained fertility probably won’t, she said.

In their recent narrative review on treating obesity and fertility with GLP-1 RAs that appeared in Fertility and Sterility, Boots and co-author Alyse S. Goldberg, MD, an endocrinologist with the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, advocate for the use of GLP-1s as a go-to treatment for obesity as part of preconception care by reproductive endocrinologists, calling the drugs “the most effective, least invasive means of weight loss.”

The paper is timely and necessary because use of GLP-1s is only going to increase, Patricia Jimenez, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, said in an email to this news organization.

“GLP-1 RAs are becoming a larger part of my practice. More patients are either using them already or interested in using them,” said Jimenez, who is board certified in reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, and obesity medicine. “I specifically see patients to discuss this and do prescribe antiobesity medications, not only GLP-1 RAs. Often this is with people with PCOS who are not planning to conceive soon or patients willing to delay fertility treatment [by] 3-6 months.”

Treating obesity is also important for women who are seeking in vitro fertilization, Boots said, because many IVF clinics have a body mass index cutoff of 40 kg/m².

Like Jimenez’s approach, Boots and Goldberg call for comprehensive obesity care beyond the use of medication, including nutritional counseling and mental health support. Those supports are important during the transition off of GLP-1 medications, which poses a risk for rapid weight regain. That’s even with the potential support of taking metformin, which Boots often prescribes as a bridge.

Semaglutide should be stopped at least 2 months prior to conception, and tirzepatide should be stopped 1 month prior to conception, according to the manufacturers. (Boots and Goldberg listed the Canadian label recommendation for stopping tirzepatide, noting there is no suggested timeline for stopping prior to conception on the US label.)

Numerous studies have shown rapid weight regain is common when stopping GLP-1s, which presents a unique set of risks for pregnant women including early pregnancy loss, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and nonelective cesarean delivery.
 

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

Early looks at small human data sets, mostly involving semaglutide and earlier short-acting GLP-1s, and their impact on the risk for birth defects are “reassuring,” Boots said.

“But birth defects are just one small aspect. There’s also metabolic health and things like that long-term. Understanding what it does to the growing baby and the proximity of that medication to that growing baby is really important to see, and can’t be answered with animal studies, not perfectly anyway,” Boots said.

There are no published reports, from clinical trials nor case collections, examining the use of tirzepatide among pregnant people.

“One of the most important questions we need to answer is the preconception safety of these medications, and that includes safety for men,” Joshua Halpern, MD, MS, an adjunct assistant professor of urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and chief scientific officer for Posterity Health, said in an email to this news organization.

“For example, a recent study found that men who were taking metformin, another popular medication for diabetes, were more likely to have children with birth defects, compared with those who were not taking the medication,” Halpern said. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a similar effect might hold true for the GLP-1 agonists.”

Small early studies on sperm are encouraging, Halpern said, suggesting that GLP-1 use may be beneficial, but a better understanding of direct effects is needed.

Among women, there may be cases where continuing use of a GLP-1 during pregnancy may offer benefits that outweigh risks, Boots suggested. Manufacturers have also created pregnancy exposure registries to measure the safety of their therapies during pregnancy.

“I have a group of patients whose sugars are so well controlled on these medications, but as soon as they come off, they get weight regain and their glucose is just so poorly controlled,” she said. “There may be a group of women where the benefits of glucose control outweigh the risks of being on the medication the whole pregnancy.”

The list of important unknowns also includes a need to examine how rapid weight loss may impact ovulation rates and spontaneous conception, as well as miscarriage rates, birth weight, and metabolic health of the child.

More detailed rebound weight gain data is coming next year, with additional analysis expected as well on birth weight and pregnancy outcomes, said Jacqueline Maya, MD, first author of the research abstract presented at this year’s American Diabetes Association conference that examined gestational weight gain among people with preexisting type 2 diabetes who were exposed to GLP-1s during pregnancy. The study included 47 exposed pregnancies (based on prescription records and electronic chart information) and compared gestational weight gain to 141 unexposed matched pregnancies. Among the exposed group, 62% exceeded recommended weight gain, compared with 41% in the unexposed group. On average, gestational weight gain in exposed pregnancies exceeded that among matched unexposed pregnancies by about 6 pounds.

The team is now working with an additional data set to examine exposed pregnancies among people with obesity, said Maya, an instructor of pediatrics at Mass General Hospital and Harvard School of Medicine. She is particularly interested in examining weight trajectories during pregnancy to see how they may affect fetal outcomes. Her team’s current project also will likely include analysis to examine other variables like postpartum weight gain and adiposity characteristics of the baby.

Maya said the team hopes to have more to report at the American Diabetes Association conference in June next year.
 

Offer the Conversation

Using a GLP-1 for weight loss takes time, usually around 1 year to reach a plateau. Boots encouraged nonfertility providers to ask patients of reproductive age about their family plans as an opening.

“I hope for all primary care doctors and gynecologists, that with any patient of reproductive age, you should be bringing this up, asking, ‘Have you thought about having kids? Are you thinking about it soon?’ And if they say they are sometime in the near future, then you can say, ‘Is it OK if I bring up your weight?’ And you should ask permission.”

If the patient declines, it’s OK to bring it up again at a future visit.

“People with obesity have often experienced negative weight bias that impacts their care,” Jimenez said. “Treat obesity as a disease, not a personal failing. Ask permission to discuss weight with the patient beforehand. If they say no, respect that answer. This goes a long way in developing a positive relationship, so they return for care and may be willing to discuss later.” 

When patients are open to the conversation, Boots suggests not focusing on the potential for poor outcomes, and instead perhaps saying, “If you’re thinking about having a baby in 5 years, optimizing your health now will not only make your pregnancy healthier, but your child healthier long-term.”

Discussing contraception plans remains important. People starting semaglutide or tirzepatide should use contraception other than oral birth control for 4 weeks while starting the medicine and for 4 weeks after each dose increase.

Boots said that the contraception conversation is particularly important because many people have come to deeply believe that they are infertile and, thus, may perhaps think contraception advice doesn’t apply to them. Maya hypothesized that behavioral changes following weight loss may also be a pathway toward pregnancy.

“Pregnancy while on GLP-1 RAs does happen. I always have a discussion about this possibility and contraception. This can sometimes be challenging for people with infertility to consider,” Jimenez said. “Explaining the risks, benefits, and unknowns can help. As the [Fertility and Sterility] paper describes, the limited data available has not shown increased fetal or maternal complications. We need more high quality data to better understand the impact of exposure or use around the time of conception and during pregnancy.”

It’s also important to introduce the idea to patients that they may someday need to come off the medications, such as when they are ready to have children, and how important lifestyle and behavioral changes will be at that time, Maya said.

“We do know what the alternative is, and we do know what the risks of obesity are,” she said. “So, it’s a tug and pull. We’re not starting off with healthy. We’re starting off with a disease that is physically and emotionally very difficult for the patient, especially when it starts in childhood.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

First, there were “Ozempic babies.” Now, there is also Ozempic-before-baby.

Unplanned pregnancies are still regularly being reported among people using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs, and now fertility specialists are increasingly incorporating the medicines into preconception care plans.

The specialists say their colleagues in other areas of medicine may have an opportunity, too, to talk about weight loss using these new drugs in terms of reproductive health. Motivation and compliance can transform when the goal isn’t simply weight loss but having children.

“We have this really special moment to help patients be healthier, in order to be healthier for their kids,” said Christina Boots, MD, MSci, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. “And I think that’s also a very motivating moment. It may be hard to get up and go for a run to make my jeans fit better, but when I think about it in terms of, ‘this might someday help my future daughter,’ that is a whole different level of motivation.”

Discussing obesity treatment can be a delicate conversation, but one that would be beneficial to have with any patient of reproductive age. Here’s why, what to know about the current lengthy list of unknowns and risks, and some options for approaching the topic with patients.
 

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

While overweight and obesity are consistently linked to fertility and pregnancy outcomes, Boots predicts the biggest impact of GLP-1 weight loss for fertility among women will be a specific subset: Those who are not cycling regularly, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

“The women who are cycling regularly who have very unexplained infertility and no other comorbidities like high blood pressure or something else going on, I don’t think it’s going to help their fertility very much at all,” she said “It might, but I think there’s probably something else going on in her tubes or with her eggs or his sperm, but it has nothing to do with her metabolic health.

Women who aren’t cycling regularly will benefit, but those with truly unexplained fertility probably won’t, she said.

In their recent narrative review on treating obesity and fertility with GLP-1 RAs that appeared in Fertility and Sterility, Boots and co-author Alyse S. Goldberg, MD, an endocrinologist with the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, advocate for the use of GLP-1s as a go-to treatment for obesity as part of preconception care by reproductive endocrinologists, calling the drugs “the most effective, least invasive means of weight loss.”

The paper is timely and necessary because use of GLP-1s is only going to increase, Patricia Jimenez, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, said in an email to this news organization.

“GLP-1 RAs are becoming a larger part of my practice. More patients are either using them already or interested in using them,” said Jimenez, who is board certified in reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, and obesity medicine. “I specifically see patients to discuss this and do prescribe antiobesity medications, not only GLP-1 RAs. Often this is with people with PCOS who are not planning to conceive soon or patients willing to delay fertility treatment [by] 3-6 months.”

Treating obesity is also important for women who are seeking in vitro fertilization, Boots said, because many IVF clinics have a body mass index cutoff of 40 kg/m².

Like Jimenez’s approach, Boots and Goldberg call for comprehensive obesity care beyond the use of medication, including nutritional counseling and mental health support. Those supports are important during the transition off of GLP-1 medications, which poses a risk for rapid weight regain. That’s even with the potential support of taking metformin, which Boots often prescribes as a bridge.

Semaglutide should be stopped at least 2 months prior to conception, and tirzepatide should be stopped 1 month prior to conception, according to the manufacturers. (Boots and Goldberg listed the Canadian label recommendation for stopping tirzepatide, noting there is no suggested timeline for stopping prior to conception on the US label.)

Numerous studies have shown rapid weight regain is common when stopping GLP-1s, which presents a unique set of risks for pregnant women including early pregnancy loss, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and nonelective cesarean delivery.
 

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

Early looks at small human data sets, mostly involving semaglutide and earlier short-acting GLP-1s, and their impact on the risk for birth defects are “reassuring,” Boots said.

“But birth defects are just one small aspect. There’s also metabolic health and things like that long-term. Understanding what it does to the growing baby and the proximity of that medication to that growing baby is really important to see, and can’t be answered with animal studies, not perfectly anyway,” Boots said.

There are no published reports, from clinical trials nor case collections, examining the use of tirzepatide among pregnant people.

“One of the most important questions we need to answer is the preconception safety of these medications, and that includes safety for men,” Joshua Halpern, MD, MS, an adjunct assistant professor of urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and chief scientific officer for Posterity Health, said in an email to this news organization.

“For example, a recent study found that men who were taking metformin, another popular medication for diabetes, were more likely to have children with birth defects, compared with those who were not taking the medication,” Halpern said. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a similar effect might hold true for the GLP-1 agonists.”

Small early studies on sperm are encouraging, Halpern said, suggesting that GLP-1 use may be beneficial, but a better understanding of direct effects is needed.

Among women, there may be cases where continuing use of a GLP-1 during pregnancy may offer benefits that outweigh risks, Boots suggested. Manufacturers have also created pregnancy exposure registries to measure the safety of their therapies during pregnancy.

“I have a group of patients whose sugars are so well controlled on these medications, but as soon as they come off, they get weight regain and their glucose is just so poorly controlled,” she said. “There may be a group of women where the benefits of glucose control outweigh the risks of being on the medication the whole pregnancy.”

The list of important unknowns also includes a need to examine how rapid weight loss may impact ovulation rates and spontaneous conception, as well as miscarriage rates, birth weight, and metabolic health of the child.

More detailed rebound weight gain data is coming next year, with additional analysis expected as well on birth weight and pregnancy outcomes, said Jacqueline Maya, MD, first author of the research abstract presented at this year’s American Diabetes Association conference that examined gestational weight gain among people with preexisting type 2 diabetes who were exposed to GLP-1s during pregnancy. The study included 47 exposed pregnancies (based on prescription records and electronic chart information) and compared gestational weight gain to 141 unexposed matched pregnancies. Among the exposed group, 62% exceeded recommended weight gain, compared with 41% in the unexposed group. On average, gestational weight gain in exposed pregnancies exceeded that among matched unexposed pregnancies by about 6 pounds.

The team is now working with an additional data set to examine exposed pregnancies among people with obesity, said Maya, an instructor of pediatrics at Mass General Hospital and Harvard School of Medicine. She is particularly interested in examining weight trajectories during pregnancy to see how they may affect fetal outcomes. Her team’s current project also will likely include analysis to examine other variables like postpartum weight gain and adiposity characteristics of the baby.

Maya said the team hopes to have more to report at the American Diabetes Association conference in June next year.
 

Offer the Conversation

Using a GLP-1 for weight loss takes time, usually around 1 year to reach a plateau. Boots encouraged nonfertility providers to ask patients of reproductive age about their family plans as an opening.

“I hope for all primary care doctors and gynecologists, that with any patient of reproductive age, you should be bringing this up, asking, ‘Have you thought about having kids? Are you thinking about it soon?’ And if they say they are sometime in the near future, then you can say, ‘Is it OK if I bring up your weight?’ And you should ask permission.”

If the patient declines, it’s OK to bring it up again at a future visit.

“People with obesity have often experienced negative weight bias that impacts their care,” Jimenez said. “Treat obesity as a disease, not a personal failing. Ask permission to discuss weight with the patient beforehand. If they say no, respect that answer. This goes a long way in developing a positive relationship, so they return for care and may be willing to discuss later.” 

When patients are open to the conversation, Boots suggests not focusing on the potential for poor outcomes, and instead perhaps saying, “If you’re thinking about having a baby in 5 years, optimizing your health now will not only make your pregnancy healthier, but your child healthier long-term.”

Discussing contraception plans remains important. People starting semaglutide or tirzepatide should use contraception other than oral birth control for 4 weeks while starting the medicine and for 4 weeks after each dose increase.

Boots said that the contraception conversation is particularly important because many people have come to deeply believe that they are infertile and, thus, may perhaps think contraception advice doesn’t apply to them. Maya hypothesized that behavioral changes following weight loss may also be a pathway toward pregnancy.

“Pregnancy while on GLP-1 RAs does happen. I always have a discussion about this possibility and contraception. This can sometimes be challenging for people with infertility to consider,” Jimenez said. “Explaining the risks, benefits, and unknowns can help. As the [Fertility and Sterility] paper describes, the limited data available has not shown increased fetal or maternal complications. We need more high quality data to better understand the impact of exposure or use around the time of conception and during pregnancy.”

It’s also important to introduce the idea to patients that they may someday need to come off the medications, such as when they are ready to have children, and how important lifestyle and behavioral changes will be at that time, Maya said.

“We do know what the alternative is, and we do know what the risks of obesity are,” she said. “So, it’s a tug and pull. We’re not starting off with healthy. We’re starting off with a disease that is physically and emotionally very difficult for the patient, especially when it starts in childhood.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

First, there were “Ozempic babies.” Now, there is also Ozempic-before-baby.

Unplanned pregnancies are still regularly being reported among people using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) drugs, and now fertility specialists are increasingly incorporating the medicines into preconception care plans.

The specialists say their colleagues in other areas of medicine may have an opportunity, too, to talk about weight loss using these new drugs in terms of reproductive health. Motivation and compliance can transform when the goal isn’t simply weight loss but having children.

“We have this really special moment to help patients be healthier, in order to be healthier for their kids,” said Christina Boots, MD, MSci, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. “And I think that’s also a very motivating moment. It may be hard to get up and go for a run to make my jeans fit better, but when I think about it in terms of, ‘this might someday help my future daughter,’ that is a whole different level of motivation.”

Discussing obesity treatment can be a delicate conversation, but one that would be beneficial to have with any patient of reproductive age. Here’s why, what to know about the current lengthy list of unknowns and risks, and some options for approaching the topic with patients.
 

What Fertility Docs Are Doing

While overweight and obesity are consistently linked to fertility and pregnancy outcomes, Boots predicts the biggest impact of GLP-1 weight loss for fertility among women will be a specific subset: Those who are not cycling regularly, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

“The women who are cycling regularly who have very unexplained infertility and no other comorbidities like high blood pressure or something else going on, I don’t think it’s going to help their fertility very much at all,” she said “It might, but I think there’s probably something else going on in her tubes or with her eggs or his sperm, but it has nothing to do with her metabolic health.

Women who aren’t cycling regularly will benefit, but those with truly unexplained fertility probably won’t, she said.

In their recent narrative review on treating obesity and fertility with GLP-1 RAs that appeared in Fertility and Sterility, Boots and co-author Alyse S. Goldberg, MD, an endocrinologist with the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, advocate for the use of GLP-1s as a go-to treatment for obesity as part of preconception care by reproductive endocrinologists, calling the drugs “the most effective, least invasive means of weight loss.”

The paper is timely and necessary because use of GLP-1s is only going to increase, Patricia Jimenez, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, said in an email to this news organization.

“GLP-1 RAs are becoming a larger part of my practice. More patients are either using them already or interested in using them,” said Jimenez, who is board certified in reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, and obesity medicine. “I specifically see patients to discuss this and do prescribe antiobesity medications, not only GLP-1 RAs. Often this is with people with PCOS who are not planning to conceive soon or patients willing to delay fertility treatment [by] 3-6 months.”

Treating obesity is also important for women who are seeking in vitro fertilization, Boots said, because many IVF clinics have a body mass index cutoff of 40 kg/m².

Like Jimenez’s approach, Boots and Goldberg call for comprehensive obesity care beyond the use of medication, including nutritional counseling and mental health support. Those supports are important during the transition off of GLP-1 medications, which poses a risk for rapid weight regain. That’s even with the potential support of taking metformin, which Boots often prescribes as a bridge.

Semaglutide should be stopped at least 2 months prior to conception, and tirzepatide should be stopped 1 month prior to conception, according to the manufacturers. (Boots and Goldberg listed the Canadian label recommendation for stopping tirzepatide, noting there is no suggested timeline for stopping prior to conception on the US label.)

Numerous studies have shown rapid weight regain is common when stopping GLP-1s, which presents a unique set of risks for pregnant women including early pregnancy loss, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and nonelective cesarean delivery.
 

Weighing Risks, Benefits, and Unknowns

Early looks at small human data sets, mostly involving semaglutide and earlier short-acting GLP-1s, and their impact on the risk for birth defects are “reassuring,” Boots said.

“But birth defects are just one small aspect. There’s also metabolic health and things like that long-term. Understanding what it does to the growing baby and the proximity of that medication to that growing baby is really important to see, and can’t be answered with animal studies, not perfectly anyway,” Boots said.

There are no published reports, from clinical trials nor case collections, examining the use of tirzepatide among pregnant people.

“One of the most important questions we need to answer is the preconception safety of these medications, and that includes safety for men,” Joshua Halpern, MD, MS, an adjunct assistant professor of urology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, and chief scientific officer for Posterity Health, said in an email to this news organization.

“For example, a recent study found that men who were taking metformin, another popular medication for diabetes, were more likely to have children with birth defects, compared with those who were not taking the medication,” Halpern said. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a similar effect might hold true for the GLP-1 agonists.”

Small early studies on sperm are encouraging, Halpern said, suggesting that GLP-1 use may be beneficial, but a better understanding of direct effects is needed.

Among women, there may be cases where continuing use of a GLP-1 during pregnancy may offer benefits that outweigh risks, Boots suggested. Manufacturers have also created pregnancy exposure registries to measure the safety of their therapies during pregnancy.

“I have a group of patients whose sugars are so well controlled on these medications, but as soon as they come off, they get weight regain and their glucose is just so poorly controlled,” she said. “There may be a group of women where the benefits of glucose control outweigh the risks of being on the medication the whole pregnancy.”

The list of important unknowns also includes a need to examine how rapid weight loss may impact ovulation rates and spontaneous conception, as well as miscarriage rates, birth weight, and metabolic health of the child.

More detailed rebound weight gain data is coming next year, with additional analysis expected as well on birth weight and pregnancy outcomes, said Jacqueline Maya, MD, first author of the research abstract presented at this year’s American Diabetes Association conference that examined gestational weight gain among people with preexisting type 2 diabetes who were exposed to GLP-1s during pregnancy. The study included 47 exposed pregnancies (based on prescription records and electronic chart information) and compared gestational weight gain to 141 unexposed matched pregnancies. Among the exposed group, 62% exceeded recommended weight gain, compared with 41% in the unexposed group. On average, gestational weight gain in exposed pregnancies exceeded that among matched unexposed pregnancies by about 6 pounds.

The team is now working with an additional data set to examine exposed pregnancies among people with obesity, said Maya, an instructor of pediatrics at Mass General Hospital and Harvard School of Medicine. She is particularly interested in examining weight trajectories during pregnancy to see how they may affect fetal outcomes. Her team’s current project also will likely include analysis to examine other variables like postpartum weight gain and adiposity characteristics of the baby.

Maya said the team hopes to have more to report at the American Diabetes Association conference in June next year.
 

Offer the Conversation

Using a GLP-1 for weight loss takes time, usually around 1 year to reach a plateau. Boots encouraged nonfertility providers to ask patients of reproductive age about their family plans as an opening.

“I hope for all primary care doctors and gynecologists, that with any patient of reproductive age, you should be bringing this up, asking, ‘Have you thought about having kids? Are you thinking about it soon?’ And if they say they are sometime in the near future, then you can say, ‘Is it OK if I bring up your weight?’ And you should ask permission.”

If the patient declines, it’s OK to bring it up again at a future visit.

“People with obesity have often experienced negative weight bias that impacts their care,” Jimenez said. “Treat obesity as a disease, not a personal failing. Ask permission to discuss weight with the patient beforehand. If they say no, respect that answer. This goes a long way in developing a positive relationship, so they return for care and may be willing to discuss later.” 

When patients are open to the conversation, Boots suggests not focusing on the potential for poor outcomes, and instead perhaps saying, “If you’re thinking about having a baby in 5 years, optimizing your health now will not only make your pregnancy healthier, but your child healthier long-term.”

Discussing contraception plans remains important. People starting semaglutide or tirzepatide should use contraception other than oral birth control for 4 weeks while starting the medicine and for 4 weeks after each dose increase.

Boots said that the contraception conversation is particularly important because many people have come to deeply believe that they are infertile and, thus, may perhaps think contraception advice doesn’t apply to them. Maya hypothesized that behavioral changes following weight loss may also be a pathway toward pregnancy.

“Pregnancy while on GLP-1 RAs does happen. I always have a discussion about this possibility and contraception. This can sometimes be challenging for people with infertility to consider,” Jimenez said. “Explaining the risks, benefits, and unknowns can help. As the [Fertility and Sterility] paper describes, the limited data available has not shown increased fetal or maternal complications. We need more high quality data to better understand the impact of exposure or use around the time of conception and during pregnancy.”

It’s also important to introduce the idea to patients that they may someday need to come off the medications, such as when they are ready to have children, and how important lifestyle and behavioral changes will be at that time, Maya said.

“We do know what the alternative is, and we do know what the risks of obesity are,” she said. “So, it’s a tug and pull. We’re not starting off with healthy. We’re starting off with a disease that is physically and emotionally very difficult for the patient, especially when it starts in childhood.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new COVID-19 variant called XEC is on the rise, and it has experts who track variants on alert. 

Each time a new variant makes a grand entrance onto tracker lists, health officials take notice because it may mean there’s an important change in behavior of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

Countries reporting rising detections of XEC include Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Australian data scientist Mike Honey posted on the platform X this past week.

XEC’s “characteristic mutations” have been detected in at least 25 states, CBS News reported, with New Jersey, California, and Virginia labs reporting 10 or more cases each. New Jersey detections at least in part stem from the CDC’s testing program for international travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport.

Still, XEC hasn’t gained enough traction in Europe, the United States, or any other part of the world for it to be listed as a standalone variant on official watchlists maintained by the CDC, European Union, or World Health Organization.

However, Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-at-large for Medscape, believes XEC is the next variant “to get legs.” 

The rate at which a new variant takes the stage doesn’t always predict how severe it will be. Around this time last year, health officials sounded alarms about another Omicron variant called BA.2.86, dubbed Pirola, that ultimately didn’t make major waves.

“CDC is not aware of any specific symptoms associated with XEC or any other co-circulating SARS-CoV-2 lineage,” a CDC spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News.

The current dominant variant in the U.S. is called KP.3.1.1, accounting for an estimated 53% of U.S. COVID cases. Its parent lineages are KP.2 and KP.3, and all of these belong to the Omicron family. The SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates over time, and scientists use the names and labels to identify groups of viral variants based on their similarities and on which strains a mutated descendant came from.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A new COVID-19 variant called XEC is on the rise, and it has experts who track variants on alert. 

Each time a new variant makes a grand entrance onto tracker lists, health officials take notice because it may mean there’s an important change in behavior of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

Countries reporting rising detections of XEC include Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Australian data scientist Mike Honey posted on the platform X this past week.

XEC’s “characteristic mutations” have been detected in at least 25 states, CBS News reported, with New Jersey, California, and Virginia labs reporting 10 or more cases each. New Jersey detections at least in part stem from the CDC’s testing program for international travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport.

Still, XEC hasn’t gained enough traction in Europe, the United States, or any other part of the world for it to be listed as a standalone variant on official watchlists maintained by the CDC, European Union, or World Health Organization.

However, Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-at-large for Medscape, believes XEC is the next variant “to get legs.” 

The rate at which a new variant takes the stage doesn’t always predict how severe it will be. Around this time last year, health officials sounded alarms about another Omicron variant called BA.2.86, dubbed Pirola, that ultimately didn’t make major waves.

“CDC is not aware of any specific symptoms associated with XEC or any other co-circulating SARS-CoV-2 lineage,” a CDC spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News.

The current dominant variant in the U.S. is called KP.3.1.1, accounting for an estimated 53% of U.S. COVID cases. Its parent lineages are KP.2 and KP.3, and all of these belong to the Omicron family. The SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates over time, and scientists use the names and labels to identify groups of viral variants based on their similarities and on which strains a mutated descendant came from.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A new COVID-19 variant called XEC is on the rise, and it has experts who track variants on alert. 

Each time a new variant makes a grand entrance onto tracker lists, health officials take notice because it may mean there’s an important change in behavior of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

Countries reporting rising detections of XEC include Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Australian data scientist Mike Honey posted on the platform X this past week.

XEC’s “characteristic mutations” have been detected in at least 25 states, CBS News reported, with New Jersey, California, and Virginia labs reporting 10 or more cases each. New Jersey detections at least in part stem from the CDC’s testing program for international travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport.

Still, XEC hasn’t gained enough traction in Europe, the United States, or any other part of the world for it to be listed as a standalone variant on official watchlists maintained by the CDC, European Union, or World Health Organization.

However, Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-at-large for Medscape, believes XEC is the next variant “to get legs.” 

The rate at which a new variant takes the stage doesn’t always predict how severe it will be. Around this time last year, health officials sounded alarms about another Omicron variant called BA.2.86, dubbed Pirola, that ultimately didn’t make major waves.

“CDC is not aware of any specific symptoms associated with XEC or any other co-circulating SARS-CoV-2 lineage,” a CDC spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News.

The current dominant variant in the U.S. is called KP.3.1.1, accounting for an estimated 53% of U.S. COVID cases. Its parent lineages are KP.2 and KP.3, and all of these belong to the Omicron family. The SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates over time, and scientists use the names and labels to identify groups of viral variants based on their similarities and on which strains a mutated descendant came from.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure. 

Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.

The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.

Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.

Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60. 

“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”

Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.

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

Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure. 

Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.

The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.

Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.

Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60. 

“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”

Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.

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

Nearly one-third of US adults may have low iron levels that can add to problems ranging from fatigue to heart failure. 

Researchers in a new study estimated that 7% of US adults have anemia, a blood disorder that can be iron related and is particularly well-known in part because of screenings given during pregnancy. But more striking was the finding in this latest study that a significant portion of the population may have less severe iron deficiencies that have been linked to serious health problems.

The body gets iron from food, and it can store iron for times when there isn’t enough it can access right away. The research team looked at test results that show whether people have enough iron stored, as well as whether their bodies could effectively use available iron. If you don’t have enough iron stored, you have a condition called absolute iron deficiency. And if you have stored iron but problems using it, you have what’s called functional iron deficiency. The study found that an estimated 14% of adults have absolute iron deficiency, and another 15% have functional iron deficiency.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, are based on data from more than 8,000 people who had laboratory iron levels on file as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that was done from 2017 to 2020.

Besides anemia, iron deficiency is linked to other serious health problems, including restless legs syndrome, mental and thinking difficulties, reduced physical abilities, and heart failure, the authors noted. The effects of iron deficiency can significantly impact a person’s quality of life.

Routine blood work as part of an annual physical doesn’t typically include a check of iron levels unless there is a cause for concern. The out-of-pocket cost without using insurance for a blood test to check iron levels is typically around $60. 

“This is a common yet underappreciated public health problem,” study author Leo Buckley, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacology specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told NBC News. “What’s unique about our study is we were looking at regular people who would not otherwise have been screened or tested.”

Treatment for low iron levels can include changes to your diet, as well as intravenous or oral supplements. Taking an iron supplement should be done under the guidance of a health care provider because of the risk of iron toxicity.

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

The FDA has launched an investigation of the potential exposure to heavy metals when using tampons, the agency announced.

The move follows the publication earlier this year of concerning laboratory test results that detected the presence of more than a dozen metals in a variety of popular nonorganic and organic tampon products. That small study was a combined effort by researchers from Columbia University, Michigan State University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

“We want the public to know that before tampons can be legally sold in the US, they must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers must test the product and its component materials before, during, and after manufacturing,” the FDA wrote in the announcement of its own upcoming study. “Before a product is allowed onto the market, biocompatibility testing is undertaken by the manufacturing company, which is part of safety testing, and is reviewed by the FDA prior to market authorization.”

There will be two studies, the FDA said. One of the studies will involve laboratory tests to evaluate metals in tampons and potential exposure people may experience when using them. The other study will be a review of current research regarding the health effects of metals that may be found in tampons.

The earlier study, published by the journal Environment International, found levels of lead in every product the researchers tested and detectable levels of more than a dozen other metals like arsenic and cadmium.

The researchers tested 24 tampon products from a range of major brands as well as store brands. The tampons were purchased at stores and online between September 2022 and March 2023. Metal content tended to differ by whether or not a product was labeled as organic, the researchers reported. Lead concentrations were higher in nonorganic tampons, and organic tampons had higher levels of arsenic.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency says, and the effects are cumulative throughout the course of life. The study authors noted that the average age that girls begin menstruation is 12 years old, and the onset of menopause occurs, on average, at age 51. One study mentioned by the researchers estimated that between 52% and 86% of people who menstruate use tampons.

The FDA plans a more expansive set of analyses than the earlier study, the agency announced.

“While the study found metals in some tampons, the study did not test whether metals are released from tampons when used. It also did not test for metals being released, absorbed into the vaginal lining, and getting into the bloodstream during tampon use,” the FDA announcement stated. “The FDA’s laboratory study will measure the amount of metals that come out of tampons under conditions that more closely mimic normal use.”

The absorbent materials in tampons, like cotton, rayon, and viscose, are potential sources of the metals. Cotton plants are particularly known to readily take up metals from the soil, although there are other ways that metals may enter the products, like during the manufacturing process.

Exposure to metals found in the initial analysis can affect a range of body systems and processes, including the brain, the kidneys, the heart, blood, and the reproductive and immune systems.

The vagina, the researchers noted, is highly permeable and substances absorbed there do not get filtered for toxins, such as by being metabolized or passing through the liver, before entering the body’s circulatory system.

The FDA announcement did not specify a timeframe for the completion of its investigation.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The FDA has launched an investigation of the potential exposure to heavy metals when using tampons, the agency announced.

The move follows the publication earlier this year of concerning laboratory test results that detected the presence of more than a dozen metals in a variety of popular nonorganic and organic tampon products. That small study was a combined effort by researchers from Columbia University, Michigan State University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

“We want the public to know that before tampons can be legally sold in the US, they must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers must test the product and its component materials before, during, and after manufacturing,” the FDA wrote in the announcement of its own upcoming study. “Before a product is allowed onto the market, biocompatibility testing is undertaken by the manufacturing company, which is part of safety testing, and is reviewed by the FDA prior to market authorization.”

There will be two studies, the FDA said. One of the studies will involve laboratory tests to evaluate metals in tampons and potential exposure people may experience when using them. The other study will be a review of current research regarding the health effects of metals that may be found in tampons.

The earlier study, published by the journal Environment International, found levels of lead in every product the researchers tested and detectable levels of more than a dozen other metals like arsenic and cadmium.

The researchers tested 24 tampon products from a range of major brands as well as store brands. The tampons were purchased at stores and online between September 2022 and March 2023. Metal content tended to differ by whether or not a product was labeled as organic, the researchers reported. Lead concentrations were higher in nonorganic tampons, and organic tampons had higher levels of arsenic.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency says, and the effects are cumulative throughout the course of life. The study authors noted that the average age that girls begin menstruation is 12 years old, and the onset of menopause occurs, on average, at age 51. One study mentioned by the researchers estimated that between 52% and 86% of people who menstruate use tampons.

The FDA plans a more expansive set of analyses than the earlier study, the agency announced.

“While the study found metals in some tampons, the study did not test whether metals are released from tampons when used. It also did not test for metals being released, absorbed into the vaginal lining, and getting into the bloodstream during tampon use,” the FDA announcement stated. “The FDA’s laboratory study will measure the amount of metals that come out of tampons under conditions that more closely mimic normal use.”

The absorbent materials in tampons, like cotton, rayon, and viscose, are potential sources of the metals. Cotton plants are particularly known to readily take up metals from the soil, although there are other ways that metals may enter the products, like during the manufacturing process.

Exposure to metals found in the initial analysis can affect a range of body systems and processes, including the brain, the kidneys, the heart, blood, and the reproductive and immune systems.

The vagina, the researchers noted, is highly permeable and substances absorbed there do not get filtered for toxins, such as by being metabolized or passing through the liver, before entering the body’s circulatory system.

The FDA announcement did not specify a timeframe for the completion of its investigation.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The FDA has launched an investigation of the potential exposure to heavy metals when using tampons, the agency announced.

The move follows the publication earlier this year of concerning laboratory test results that detected the presence of more than a dozen metals in a variety of popular nonorganic and organic tampon products. That small study was a combined effort by researchers from Columbia University, Michigan State University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

“We want the public to know that before tampons can be legally sold in the US, they must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers must test the product and its component materials before, during, and after manufacturing,” the FDA wrote in the announcement of its own upcoming study. “Before a product is allowed onto the market, biocompatibility testing is undertaken by the manufacturing company, which is part of safety testing, and is reviewed by the FDA prior to market authorization.”

There will be two studies, the FDA said. One of the studies will involve laboratory tests to evaluate metals in tampons and potential exposure people may experience when using them. The other study will be a review of current research regarding the health effects of metals that may be found in tampons.

The earlier study, published by the journal Environment International, found levels of lead in every product the researchers tested and detectable levels of more than a dozen other metals like arsenic and cadmium.

The researchers tested 24 tampon products from a range of major brands as well as store brands. The tampons were purchased at stores and online between September 2022 and March 2023. Metal content tended to differ by whether or not a product was labeled as organic, the researchers reported. Lead concentrations were higher in nonorganic tampons, and organic tampons had higher levels of arsenic.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency says, and the effects are cumulative throughout the course of life. The study authors noted that the average age that girls begin menstruation is 12 years old, and the onset of menopause occurs, on average, at age 51. One study mentioned by the researchers estimated that between 52% and 86% of people who menstruate use tampons.

The FDA plans a more expansive set of analyses than the earlier study, the agency announced.

“While the study found metals in some tampons, the study did not test whether metals are released from tampons when used. It also did not test for metals being released, absorbed into the vaginal lining, and getting into the bloodstream during tampon use,” the FDA announcement stated. “The FDA’s laboratory study will measure the amount of metals that come out of tampons under conditions that more closely mimic normal use.”

The absorbent materials in tampons, like cotton, rayon, and viscose, are potential sources of the metals. Cotton plants are particularly known to readily take up metals from the soil, although there are other ways that metals may enter the products, like during the manufacturing process.

Exposure to metals found in the initial analysis can affect a range of body systems and processes, including the brain, the kidneys, the heart, blood, and the reproductive and immune systems.

The vagina, the researchers noted, is highly permeable and substances absorbed there do not get filtered for toxins, such as by being metabolized or passing through the liver, before entering the body’s circulatory system.

The FDA announcement did not specify a timeframe for the completion of its investigation.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

Like many diseases, whooping cough reached record low levels during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Also known as pertussis, it’s back with a vengeance and could even threaten people who are vaccinated against the disease, since protection fades over time.

More than 10,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported in the United States so far this year, and weekly reports say cases have more than tripled 2023 levels as of June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2023, there were 2815 cases reported during the entire year.

“The number of reported cases this year is close to what was seen at the same time in 2019, prior to the pandemic,” the CDC reported. There were 18,617 cases of whooping cough in 2019.

There were 259 cases reported nationwide for the week ending Aug. 3, with nearly half occurring in the mid-Atlantic region. Public health officials believe the resurgence of whooping cough is likely due to declining vaccination rates, mainly due to the missed vaccines during the height of the COVID pandemic. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTaP) have been given together since the 1940s, typically during infancy and again during early childhood. In 1941, there were more than 220,000 cases of whooping cough.

Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. The bacteria attach to tiny, hair-like extensions in the upper respiratory system called cilia, and toxins released by them damage the cilia and cause airways to swell. Early symptoms are similar to the common cold, but the condition eventually leads to coughing fits and a high-pitched “whoop” sound made when inhaling after a fit subsides. Coughing fits can be so severe that people can fracture a rib.

Vaccinated people may get a less severe illness, compared to unvaccinated people, the CDC says. Babies and children are particularly at risk for severe and even potentially deadly complications. About one in three babies under age 1 who get whooping cough will need to be hospitalized, and among those hospitalized babies, 1 in 100 die from complications.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Like many diseases, whooping cough reached record low levels during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Also known as pertussis, it’s back with a vengeance and could even threaten people who are vaccinated against the disease, since protection fades over time.

More than 10,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported in the United States so far this year, and weekly reports say cases have more than tripled 2023 levels as of June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2023, there were 2815 cases reported during the entire year.

“The number of reported cases this year is close to what was seen at the same time in 2019, prior to the pandemic,” the CDC reported. There were 18,617 cases of whooping cough in 2019.

There were 259 cases reported nationwide for the week ending Aug. 3, with nearly half occurring in the mid-Atlantic region. Public health officials believe the resurgence of whooping cough is likely due to declining vaccination rates, mainly due to the missed vaccines during the height of the COVID pandemic. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTaP) have been given together since the 1940s, typically during infancy and again during early childhood. In 1941, there were more than 220,000 cases of whooping cough.

Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. The bacteria attach to tiny, hair-like extensions in the upper respiratory system called cilia, and toxins released by them damage the cilia and cause airways to swell. Early symptoms are similar to the common cold, but the condition eventually leads to coughing fits and a high-pitched “whoop” sound made when inhaling after a fit subsides. Coughing fits can be so severe that people can fracture a rib.

Vaccinated people may get a less severe illness, compared to unvaccinated people, the CDC says. Babies and children are particularly at risk for severe and even potentially deadly complications. About one in three babies under age 1 who get whooping cough will need to be hospitalized, and among those hospitalized babies, 1 in 100 die from complications.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Like many diseases, whooping cough reached record low levels during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Also known as pertussis, it’s back with a vengeance and could even threaten people who are vaccinated against the disease, since protection fades over time.

More than 10,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported in the United States so far this year, and weekly reports say cases have more than tripled 2023 levels as of June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2023, there were 2815 cases reported during the entire year.

“The number of reported cases this year is close to what was seen at the same time in 2019, prior to the pandemic,” the CDC reported. There were 18,617 cases of whooping cough in 2019.

There were 259 cases reported nationwide for the week ending Aug. 3, with nearly half occurring in the mid-Atlantic region. Public health officials believe the resurgence of whooping cough is likely due to declining vaccination rates, mainly due to the missed vaccines during the height of the COVID pandemic. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTaP) have been given together since the 1940s, typically during infancy and again during early childhood. In 1941, there were more than 220,000 cases of whooping cough.

Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. The bacteria attach to tiny, hair-like extensions in the upper respiratory system called cilia, and toxins released by them damage the cilia and cause airways to swell. Early symptoms are similar to the common cold, but the condition eventually leads to coughing fits and a high-pitched “whoop” sound made when inhaling after a fit subsides. Coughing fits can be so severe that people can fracture a rib.

Vaccinated people may get a less severe illness, compared to unvaccinated people, the CDC says. Babies and children are particularly at risk for severe and even potentially deadly complications. About one in three babies under age 1 who get whooping cough will need to be hospitalized, and among those hospitalized babies, 1 in 100 die from complications.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Do people who drink alcohol in moderation have a greater risk of early death than people who abstain? For years, a drink or two a day appeared to be linked to health benefits. But recently, scientists pointed out flaws in some of the studies that led to those conclusions, and public health warnings have escalated recently that there may be no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Now, yet another research analysis points toward that newer conclusion – that people who drink moderately do not necessarily live longer than people who abstain. The latest results are important because the researchers delved deep into data about people who previously drank but later quit, possibly due to health problems.

“That makes people who continue to drink look much healthier by comparison,” said Tim Stockwell, PhD, lead author of this latest analysis and a scientist with the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, in a statement.

The findings were published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

The key to their conclusion that drinking isn’t linked to longer life is based yet again on who moderate drinkers are compared to, Dr. Stockwell and his colleagues wrote.

For the study, researchers defined “low volume drinking” as having between one drink per week and up to two drinks per day. When researchers carefully excluded people who were former drinkers and only included data for people who were younger than 55 when they joined research studies, the abstainers and low-volume drinkers had similar risks of early death. But when the former drinkers were included in the abstainer group, the low-volume drinkers appeared to have a reduced risk of death.

When researchers define which people are included in a research analysis based on criteria that don’t reflect subtle but important population characteristics, the problem is called “selection bias.” 

“Studies with life-time selection biases may create misleading positive health associations. These biases pervade the field of alcohol epidemiology and can confuse communications about health risks,” the authors concluded.

They called for improvements in future research studies to better evaluate drinking levels that may influence health outcomes, and also noted one of their exploratory analyses suggested a need to delve deeper into the effects of other outside variables such as smoking and socioeconomic status. 
 

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

Do people who drink alcohol in moderation have a greater risk of early death than people who abstain? For years, a drink or two a day appeared to be linked to health benefits. But recently, scientists pointed out flaws in some of the studies that led to those conclusions, and public health warnings have escalated recently that there may be no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Now, yet another research analysis points toward that newer conclusion – that people who drink moderately do not necessarily live longer than people who abstain. The latest results are important because the researchers delved deep into data about people who previously drank but later quit, possibly due to health problems.

“That makes people who continue to drink look much healthier by comparison,” said Tim Stockwell, PhD, lead author of this latest analysis and a scientist with the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, in a statement.

The findings were published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

The key to their conclusion that drinking isn’t linked to longer life is based yet again on who moderate drinkers are compared to, Dr. Stockwell and his colleagues wrote.

For the study, researchers defined “low volume drinking” as having between one drink per week and up to two drinks per day. When researchers carefully excluded people who were former drinkers and only included data for people who were younger than 55 when they joined research studies, the abstainers and low-volume drinkers had similar risks of early death. But when the former drinkers were included in the abstainer group, the low-volume drinkers appeared to have a reduced risk of death.

When researchers define which people are included in a research analysis based on criteria that don’t reflect subtle but important population characteristics, the problem is called “selection bias.” 

“Studies with life-time selection biases may create misleading positive health associations. These biases pervade the field of alcohol epidemiology and can confuse communications about health risks,” the authors concluded.

They called for improvements in future research studies to better evaluate drinking levels that may influence health outcomes, and also noted one of their exploratory analyses suggested a need to delve deeper into the effects of other outside variables such as smoking and socioeconomic status. 
 

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

Do people who drink alcohol in moderation have a greater risk of early death than people who abstain? For years, a drink or two a day appeared to be linked to health benefits. But recently, scientists pointed out flaws in some of the studies that led to those conclusions, and public health warnings have escalated recently that there may be no safe level of alcohol consumption.

Now, yet another research analysis points toward that newer conclusion – that people who drink moderately do not necessarily live longer than people who abstain. The latest results are important because the researchers delved deep into data about people who previously drank but later quit, possibly due to health problems.

“That makes people who continue to drink look much healthier by comparison,” said Tim Stockwell, PhD, lead author of this latest analysis and a scientist with the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, in a statement.

The findings were published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

The key to their conclusion that drinking isn’t linked to longer life is based yet again on who moderate drinkers are compared to, Dr. Stockwell and his colleagues wrote.

For the study, researchers defined “low volume drinking” as having between one drink per week and up to two drinks per day. When researchers carefully excluded people who were former drinkers and only included data for people who were younger than 55 when they joined research studies, the abstainers and low-volume drinkers had similar risks of early death. But when the former drinkers were included in the abstainer group, the low-volume drinkers appeared to have a reduced risk of death.

When researchers define which people are included in a research analysis based on criteria that don’t reflect subtle but important population characteristics, the problem is called “selection bias.” 

“Studies with life-time selection biases may create misleading positive health associations. These biases pervade the field of alcohol epidemiology and can confuse communications about health risks,” the authors concluded.

They called for improvements in future research studies to better evaluate drinking levels that may influence health outcomes, and also noted one of their exploratory analyses suggested a need to delve deeper into the effects of other outside variables such as smoking and socioeconomic status. 
 

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

CHICAGO — Genetics and diet have been among the top theories for what may be fueling the troubling rise of colorectal cancer in young adults. Now, an early look at genetic data from people with colorectal cancer further suggests that the cause is linked to what is happening in the gut.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) by researchers from Ohio State University. For the analysis, they analyzed genetic data on tumors.

The researchers found signs that a high-fat, low-fiber diet may increase inflammation in the gut that prevents it from naturally suppressing tumors. The cells of young people with colorectal cancer also appeared to have aged more quickly — by 15 years on average — than a person’s actual age. That’s unusual, because older people with colorectal cancer don’t have the same boost in cellular aging.

The rate of colorectal cancer among young people has been rising at an alarming rate, according to a 2023 report from the American Cancer Society. In 2019, one in five colorectal cancer cases were among people younger than 55. That’s up from 1 in 10 in 1995, which means the rate has doubled in less than 30 years.
 

Need Colon Cancer Screening?

Who needs a colorectal cancer screening? Ask colorectal cancer specialist Nancy Kemeny, MD.

A 2017 analysis estimated that a person’s risk of colorectal cancer increased 12% by eating 3.5 ounces of red or processed meat daily, which is the equivalent of the size of a deck of playing cards. The same study also linked colorectal cancer risk to alcohol intake, citing its ethanol content. Eating a diet high in fiber can reduce a person’s risk.

This latest study aligned with previous findings that link bacteria called Fusobacterium to colorectal cancer. It’s not unusual for Fusobacterium to be present in a person’s mouth, but it is more likely to be found in the intestines of colorectal cancer patients, compared with those of healthy people. One study even found that people with colorectal cancer were five times more likely to have Fusobacterium in their stool, compared with healthy people.

Colorectal cancer is more common among men than women, “likely reflecting differences in risk factor prevalence, such as excess body weight and processed meat consumption,” the authors of the 2023 American Cancer Society report explained.

People younger than 45 should alert their medical provider if they have constipation, rectal bleeding, or sudden changes in bowel movements, which can be symptoms of colorectal cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer should begin for most people at age 45.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

CHICAGO — Genetics and diet have been among the top theories for what may be fueling the troubling rise of colorectal cancer in young adults. Now, an early look at genetic data from people with colorectal cancer further suggests that the cause is linked to what is happening in the gut.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) by researchers from Ohio State University. For the analysis, they analyzed genetic data on tumors.

The researchers found signs that a high-fat, low-fiber diet may increase inflammation in the gut that prevents it from naturally suppressing tumors. The cells of young people with colorectal cancer also appeared to have aged more quickly — by 15 years on average — than a person’s actual age. That’s unusual, because older people with colorectal cancer don’t have the same boost in cellular aging.

The rate of colorectal cancer among young people has been rising at an alarming rate, according to a 2023 report from the American Cancer Society. In 2019, one in five colorectal cancer cases were among people younger than 55. That’s up from 1 in 10 in 1995, which means the rate has doubled in less than 30 years.
 

Need Colon Cancer Screening?

Who needs a colorectal cancer screening? Ask colorectal cancer specialist Nancy Kemeny, MD.

A 2017 analysis estimated that a person’s risk of colorectal cancer increased 12% by eating 3.5 ounces of red or processed meat daily, which is the equivalent of the size of a deck of playing cards. The same study also linked colorectal cancer risk to alcohol intake, citing its ethanol content. Eating a diet high in fiber can reduce a person’s risk.

This latest study aligned with previous findings that link bacteria called Fusobacterium to colorectal cancer. It’s not unusual for Fusobacterium to be present in a person’s mouth, but it is more likely to be found in the intestines of colorectal cancer patients, compared with those of healthy people. One study even found that people with colorectal cancer were five times more likely to have Fusobacterium in their stool, compared with healthy people.

Colorectal cancer is more common among men than women, “likely reflecting differences in risk factor prevalence, such as excess body weight and processed meat consumption,” the authors of the 2023 American Cancer Society report explained.

People younger than 45 should alert their medical provider if they have constipation, rectal bleeding, or sudden changes in bowel movements, which can be symptoms of colorectal cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer should begin for most people at age 45.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

CHICAGO — Genetics and diet have been among the top theories for what may be fueling the troubling rise of colorectal cancer in young adults. Now, an early look at genetic data from people with colorectal cancer further suggests that the cause is linked to what is happening in the gut.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) by researchers from Ohio State University. For the analysis, they analyzed genetic data on tumors.

The researchers found signs that a high-fat, low-fiber diet may increase inflammation in the gut that prevents it from naturally suppressing tumors. The cells of young people with colorectal cancer also appeared to have aged more quickly — by 15 years on average — than a person’s actual age. That’s unusual, because older people with colorectal cancer don’t have the same boost in cellular aging.

The rate of colorectal cancer among young people has been rising at an alarming rate, according to a 2023 report from the American Cancer Society. In 2019, one in five colorectal cancer cases were among people younger than 55. That’s up from 1 in 10 in 1995, which means the rate has doubled in less than 30 years.
 

Need Colon Cancer Screening?

Who needs a colorectal cancer screening? Ask colorectal cancer specialist Nancy Kemeny, MD.

A 2017 analysis estimated that a person’s risk of colorectal cancer increased 12% by eating 3.5 ounces of red or processed meat daily, which is the equivalent of the size of a deck of playing cards. The same study also linked colorectal cancer risk to alcohol intake, citing its ethanol content. Eating a diet high in fiber can reduce a person’s risk.

This latest study aligned with previous findings that link bacteria called Fusobacterium to colorectal cancer. It’s not unusual for Fusobacterium to be present in a person’s mouth, but it is more likely to be found in the intestines of colorectal cancer patients, compared with those of healthy people. One study even found that people with colorectal cancer were five times more likely to have Fusobacterium in their stool, compared with healthy people.

Colorectal cancer is more common among men than women, “likely reflecting differences in risk factor prevalence, such as excess body weight and processed meat consumption,” the authors of the 2023 American Cancer Society report explained.

People younger than 45 should alert their medical provider if they have constipation, rectal bleeding, or sudden changes in bowel movements, which can be symptoms of colorectal cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer should begin for most people at age 45.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 may be headed toward a springtime retreat. 

The indication comes from declining levels of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in wastewater over the past 3 weeks. Virus levels are already considered “low” throughout western U.S. states. Detections are at medium levels in the Midwest and South, while high levels persist in the Northeast, according to WastewaterSCAN.

But it’s not time to let your guard down because high levels of other viruses that cause stomach and respiratory illnesses continue to circulate widely nationwide. Wastewater data currently shows threats from flu, RSV, norovirus, and rotavirus.

The rate of positive flu tests reported to the CDC had been a downward trend since peaking around a rate of 16% in mid-January, but positive test rates are now climbing again, with the most recent weekly rate back around 15%. So far this flu season, 116 children and an estimated 20,000 adults have died from the flu, according to the CDC’s weekly flu publication, FluView.

RSV wastewater detection remains high, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, WastewaterSCAN data shows. But positive RSV test results reported to the CDC are at the lowest point of the 2023 to 2024 season, with less than 2,000 positive results listed for the week of March 9, down from a peak of more than 14,000 cases around Christmas.

Wastewater data tends to offer a real-time (and sometimes predictive) view of pathogen behavior in the general population, since sick people usually wait until symptoms worsen to seek medical care. About 12% of norovirus tests reported to the CDC in the last 3 weeks of February were positive, mirroring an upward trend observed during the same time period last year. In 2023, norovirus peaked in the U.S. in March with a positive test rate around 16%, CDC data show.

Last year, COVID also followed a downward springtime trend. Around this time last year, there were about 20,000 weekly hospital admissions due to COVID-19, compared to just over 13,000 in early March this year. All COVID metrics, including the positive test rate, hospitalizations, and ER visits, are currently trending downward, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicates. The positive COVID test rate is 5%, and just 1% of ER visits in the U.S. involve a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“We’re seeing a downward trend, which is fantastic,” Marlene Wolfe, PhD, WastewaterSCAN’s program director, told USA Today. “Hopefully, that pattern continues as we enjoy some warmer weather and longer daylight.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 may be headed toward a springtime retreat. 

The indication comes from declining levels of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in wastewater over the past 3 weeks. Virus levels are already considered “low” throughout western U.S. states. Detections are at medium levels in the Midwest and South, while high levels persist in the Northeast, according to WastewaterSCAN.

But it’s not time to let your guard down because high levels of other viruses that cause stomach and respiratory illnesses continue to circulate widely nationwide. Wastewater data currently shows threats from flu, RSV, norovirus, and rotavirus.

The rate of positive flu tests reported to the CDC had been a downward trend since peaking around a rate of 16% in mid-January, but positive test rates are now climbing again, with the most recent weekly rate back around 15%. So far this flu season, 116 children and an estimated 20,000 adults have died from the flu, according to the CDC’s weekly flu publication, FluView.

RSV wastewater detection remains high, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, WastewaterSCAN data shows. But positive RSV test results reported to the CDC are at the lowest point of the 2023 to 2024 season, with less than 2,000 positive results listed for the week of March 9, down from a peak of more than 14,000 cases around Christmas.

Wastewater data tends to offer a real-time (and sometimes predictive) view of pathogen behavior in the general population, since sick people usually wait until symptoms worsen to seek medical care. About 12% of norovirus tests reported to the CDC in the last 3 weeks of February were positive, mirroring an upward trend observed during the same time period last year. In 2023, norovirus peaked in the U.S. in March with a positive test rate around 16%, CDC data show.

Last year, COVID also followed a downward springtime trend. Around this time last year, there were about 20,000 weekly hospital admissions due to COVID-19, compared to just over 13,000 in early March this year. All COVID metrics, including the positive test rate, hospitalizations, and ER visits, are currently trending downward, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicates. The positive COVID test rate is 5%, and just 1% of ER visits in the U.S. involve a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“We’re seeing a downward trend, which is fantastic,” Marlene Wolfe, PhD, WastewaterSCAN’s program director, told USA Today. “Hopefully, that pattern continues as we enjoy some warmer weather and longer daylight.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19 may be headed toward a springtime retreat. 

The indication comes from declining levels of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in wastewater over the past 3 weeks. Virus levels are already considered “low” throughout western U.S. states. Detections are at medium levels in the Midwest and South, while high levels persist in the Northeast, according to WastewaterSCAN.

But it’s not time to let your guard down because high levels of other viruses that cause stomach and respiratory illnesses continue to circulate widely nationwide. Wastewater data currently shows threats from flu, RSV, norovirus, and rotavirus.

The rate of positive flu tests reported to the CDC had been a downward trend since peaking around a rate of 16% in mid-January, but positive test rates are now climbing again, with the most recent weekly rate back around 15%. So far this flu season, 116 children and an estimated 20,000 adults have died from the flu, according to the CDC’s weekly flu publication, FluView.

RSV wastewater detection remains high, especially in the Midwest and Northeast, WastewaterSCAN data shows. But positive RSV test results reported to the CDC are at the lowest point of the 2023 to 2024 season, with less than 2,000 positive results listed for the week of March 9, down from a peak of more than 14,000 cases around Christmas.

Wastewater data tends to offer a real-time (and sometimes predictive) view of pathogen behavior in the general population, since sick people usually wait until symptoms worsen to seek medical care. About 12% of norovirus tests reported to the CDC in the last 3 weeks of February were positive, mirroring an upward trend observed during the same time period last year. In 2023, norovirus peaked in the U.S. in March with a positive test rate around 16%, CDC data show.

Last year, COVID also followed a downward springtime trend. Around this time last year, there were about 20,000 weekly hospital admissions due to COVID-19, compared to just over 13,000 in early March this year. All COVID metrics, including the positive test rate, hospitalizations, and ER visits, are currently trending downward, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicates. The positive COVID test rate is 5%, and just 1% of ER visits in the U.S. involve a COVID-19 diagnosis.

“We’re seeing a downward trend, which is fantastic,” Marlene Wolfe, PhD, WastewaterSCAN’s program director, told USA Today. “Hopefully, that pattern continues as we enjoy some warmer weather and longer daylight.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The new RSV antibody treatment for babies has been highly effective in its first season, according to a first look at data from four children’s hospitals.

Babies who received the new preventive treatment for RSV shortly after birth were 90% less likely to be severely sickened with the potentially deadly respiratory illness, according to the new estimate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first real-world evaluation of Beyfortus (the generic name is nirsevimab), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last July.

RSV is a seasonal illness that affects more people — particularly infants and the elderly — in the fall and winter. Symptoms are usually mild in healthy adults, but infants are particularly at risk of getting bronchiolitis, which results in exhausting wheezing and coughing in babies due to swelling in their airways and lungs. Babies who are hospitalized may need fluids and medical devices to help them breathe.

RSV peaked this season from November to January, with more than 10,000 monthly diagnoses reported to the CDC. 

The new CDC analysis was conducted among about 700 babies hospitalized for severe respiratory problems from October to the end of February. Among the babies in the study, 407 were diagnosed with RSV and 292 tested negative. The researchers found that 1% of babies in the study who were diagnosed with RSV had received Beyfortus, while the remaining babies who were positive for the virus had not. 

Among the babies hospitalized for other severe respiratory problems, 18% had received Beyfortus. Overall, just 59 babies among the nearly 700 in the study received Beyfortus, perhaps reflecting the short supply of the medicine the first season it was available. The report authors noted that babies in the study who did receive Beyfortus also tended to have high-risk medical conditions.

The number of babies nationwide who received Beyfortus during this first season of availability is unclear, but a January CDC survey showed that 4 in 10 parents said their babies under 8 months old had received the treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a shortage last fall resulted from underestimated demand and from production plans that were set before the CDC decided to recommend that all infants under 8 months old receive Beyfortus if their mothers did not get a maternal vaccine that can protect infants from RSV.

Both the antibody treatment for infants and the maternal vaccine were shown in clinical trials to be about 80% effective at preventing severe illness stemming from RSV.

The authors of the latest CDC report concluded that “this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The new RSV antibody treatment for babies has been highly effective in its first season, according to a first look at data from four children’s hospitals.

Babies who received the new preventive treatment for RSV shortly after birth were 90% less likely to be severely sickened with the potentially deadly respiratory illness, according to the new estimate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first real-world evaluation of Beyfortus (the generic name is nirsevimab), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last July.

RSV is a seasonal illness that affects more people — particularly infants and the elderly — in the fall and winter. Symptoms are usually mild in healthy adults, but infants are particularly at risk of getting bronchiolitis, which results in exhausting wheezing and coughing in babies due to swelling in their airways and lungs. Babies who are hospitalized may need fluids and medical devices to help them breathe.

RSV peaked this season from November to January, with more than 10,000 monthly diagnoses reported to the CDC. 

The new CDC analysis was conducted among about 700 babies hospitalized for severe respiratory problems from October to the end of February. Among the babies in the study, 407 were diagnosed with RSV and 292 tested negative. The researchers found that 1% of babies in the study who were diagnosed with RSV had received Beyfortus, while the remaining babies who were positive for the virus had not. 

Among the babies hospitalized for other severe respiratory problems, 18% had received Beyfortus. Overall, just 59 babies among the nearly 700 in the study received Beyfortus, perhaps reflecting the short supply of the medicine the first season it was available. The report authors noted that babies in the study who did receive Beyfortus also tended to have high-risk medical conditions.

The number of babies nationwide who received Beyfortus during this first season of availability is unclear, but a January CDC survey showed that 4 in 10 parents said their babies under 8 months old had received the treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a shortage last fall resulted from underestimated demand and from production plans that were set before the CDC decided to recommend that all infants under 8 months old receive Beyfortus if their mothers did not get a maternal vaccine that can protect infants from RSV.

Both the antibody treatment for infants and the maternal vaccine were shown in clinical trials to be about 80% effective at preventing severe illness stemming from RSV.

The authors of the latest CDC report concluded that “this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The new RSV antibody treatment for babies has been highly effective in its first season, according to a first look at data from four children’s hospitals.

Babies who received the new preventive treatment for RSV shortly after birth were 90% less likely to be severely sickened with the potentially deadly respiratory illness, according to the new estimate published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is the first real-world evaluation of Beyfortus (the generic name is nirsevimab), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last July.

RSV is a seasonal illness that affects more people — particularly infants and the elderly — in the fall and winter. Symptoms are usually mild in healthy adults, but infants are particularly at risk of getting bronchiolitis, which results in exhausting wheezing and coughing in babies due to swelling in their airways and lungs. Babies who are hospitalized may need fluids and medical devices to help them breathe.

RSV peaked this season from November to January, with more than 10,000 monthly diagnoses reported to the CDC. 

The new CDC analysis was conducted among about 700 babies hospitalized for severe respiratory problems from October to the end of February. Among the babies in the study, 407 were diagnosed with RSV and 292 tested negative. The researchers found that 1% of babies in the study who were diagnosed with RSV had received Beyfortus, while the remaining babies who were positive for the virus had not. 

Among the babies hospitalized for other severe respiratory problems, 18% had received Beyfortus. Overall, just 59 babies among the nearly 700 in the study received Beyfortus, perhaps reflecting the short supply of the medicine the first season it was available. The report authors noted that babies in the study who did receive Beyfortus also tended to have high-risk medical conditions.

The number of babies nationwide who received Beyfortus during this first season of availability is unclear, but a January CDC survey showed that 4 in 10 parents said their babies under 8 months old had received the treatment. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that a shortage last fall resulted from underestimated demand and from production plans that were set before the CDC decided to recommend that all infants under 8 months old receive Beyfortus if their mothers did not get a maternal vaccine that can protect infants from RSV.

Both the antibody treatment for infants and the maternal vaccine were shown in clinical trials to be about 80% effective at preventing severe illness stemming from RSV.

The authors of the latest CDC report concluded that “this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.