Clinician Reviews

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Taking a daily flavanol supplement improves hippocampal-dependent memory in older adults who have a relatively poor diet, results of a large new study suggest.

There’s increasing evidence that certain nutrients are important for the aging body and brain, study investigator Scott Small, MD, the Boris and Rose Katz Professor of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, told this news organization.

“With this new study, I think we can begin to say flavanols might be the first one that really is a nutrient for the aging brain.”

These findings, said Dr. Small, represent “the beginning of a new era” that will eventually lead to formal recommendations” related to ideal intake of flavanols to reduce cognitive aging.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
 

Better cognitive aging

Cognitive aging refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that are not thought to be caused by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Cognitive aging targets two areas of the brain: the hippocampus, which is related to memory function, and the prefrontal cortex, which is related to attention and executive function.

Previous research has linked flavanols, which are found in foods like apples, pears, berries, and cocoa beans, to improved cognitive aging. The evidence shows that consuming these nutrients might be associated with the hippocampal-dependent memory component of cognitive aging.

The new study, known as COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study-Web (COSMOS-Web), included 3,562 generally healthy men and women, mean age 71 years, who were mostly well-educated and non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White individuals.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral flavanol-containing cocoa extract (500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin) or a placebo daily.

The primary endpoint was hippocampal-dependent memory at year 1 as assessed with the ModRey, a neuropsychological test designed to measure hippocampal function.

Results showed participants in both groups had a typical learning (practice) effect, with similar improvements (d = 0.025; P = .42).

Researchers used other tests to measure cognition: the Color/Directional Flanker Task, a measure of prefrontal cortex function, and the ModBent, a measure that’s sensitive to dentate gyrus function. The flavanol intervention did not affect ModBent results or performance on the Flanker test after 1 year.

However, it was a different story for those with a poor diet at baseline. Researchers stratified participants into tertiles on the basis of diet quality as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores. Those in the lowest tertile had poorer baseline hippocampal-dependent memory performance but not memory related to the prefrontal cortex.

The flavanol intervention improved performance on the ModRey test, compared with placebo in participants in the low HEI tertile (overall effect: d = 0.086; P = .011) but not among those with a medium or high HEI at baseline.

“We confirmed that the flavanol intervention only benefits people who are relatively deficient at baseline,” said Dr. Small.

The correlation with hippocampal-dependent memory was confirmed in a subset of 1,361 study participants who provided a urine sample. Researchers measured urinary 5-(3′,4′-dihydroxyphenyl)-gamma-valerolactone metabolite (gVLM) concentrations, a validated biomarker of flavanol consumption.

After stratifying these results into tertiles, researchers found performance on the ModRey was significantly improved with the dietary flavanol intervention (overall effect: d = 0.141; P = .006) in the lowest gVLM tertile.
 

Memory restored

When participants in the lowest tertile consumed the supplement, “their flavanol levels went back to normal, and when that happened, their memory was restored,” said Dr. Small.

It appears that there is a sort of ceiling effect to the flavanol benefits. “It seems what you need to do is normalize your flavanol levels; if you go above normal, there was no evidence that your memory keeps on getting better,” said Dr. Small.

The study included only older adults, so it’s unclear what the impact of flavanol supplementation is in younger adults. But cognitive aging “begins its slippery side” in the 40s, said Dr. Small. “If this is truly a nutrient that is taken to prevent that slide from happening, it might be beneficial to start in our 40s.”

He recognized that the effect size is not large but said this is “very dependent” on baseline factors and most study participants had a rather healthy diet. “None of our participants were really highly deficient” in flavanols, he said.

“To see a stronger effect size, we need to do another study where we recruit people who are very low, truly deficient, in flavanols, and then see what happens.”

Showing that flavanols are linked to the hippocampal and not to the prefrontal component of cognitive aging “speaks to the mechanism,” said Dr. Small.

Though the exact mechanism linking flavanols with enhanced memory isn’t clear, there are some clues; for example, research suggests cognitive aging affects the dentate gyrus, a subregion of the hippocampus.

The flavanol supplements were well tolerated. “I can say with close to certainty that this is very safe,” said Dr. Small, adding the flavanols have now been used in numerous studies.

The findings suggest flavanol consumption might be part of future dietary guidelines. “I suspect that once there is sufficient evidence, flavanols will be part of the dietary recommendations for healthy aging,” said Dr. Small.
 

A word of caution

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, said that though science suggests a balanced diet is good for overall brain health, no single food, beverage, ingredient, vitamin, or supplement has yet been proven to prevent dementia, treat or cure Alzheimer’s, or benefit cognitive function or brain health.

Experts agree the best source of vitamins and other nutrients is from whole foods as part of a balanced diet. “We recognize that, for a variety of reasons, this may not always be possible,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, she noted, dietary supplements are not subject to the same rigorous review and regulation process as medications.

“The Alzheimer’s Association strongly encourages individuals to have conversations with their physicians about all medications and dietary supplements they are currently taking or interested in starting.” 

COSMOS is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars, company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Small reports receiving an unrestricted research grant from Mars.

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

Taking a daily flavanol supplement improves hippocampal-dependent memory in older adults who have a relatively poor diet, results of a large new study suggest.

There’s increasing evidence that certain nutrients are important for the aging body and brain, study investigator Scott Small, MD, the Boris and Rose Katz Professor of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, told this news organization.

“With this new study, I think we can begin to say flavanols might be the first one that really is a nutrient for the aging brain.”

These findings, said Dr. Small, represent “the beginning of a new era” that will eventually lead to formal recommendations” related to ideal intake of flavanols to reduce cognitive aging.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
 

Better cognitive aging

Cognitive aging refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that are not thought to be caused by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Cognitive aging targets two areas of the brain: the hippocampus, which is related to memory function, and the prefrontal cortex, which is related to attention and executive function.

Previous research has linked flavanols, which are found in foods like apples, pears, berries, and cocoa beans, to improved cognitive aging. The evidence shows that consuming these nutrients might be associated with the hippocampal-dependent memory component of cognitive aging.

The new study, known as COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study-Web (COSMOS-Web), included 3,562 generally healthy men and women, mean age 71 years, who were mostly well-educated and non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White individuals.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral flavanol-containing cocoa extract (500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin) or a placebo daily.

The primary endpoint was hippocampal-dependent memory at year 1 as assessed with the ModRey, a neuropsychological test designed to measure hippocampal function.

Results showed participants in both groups had a typical learning (practice) effect, with similar improvements (d = 0.025; P = .42).

Researchers used other tests to measure cognition: the Color/Directional Flanker Task, a measure of prefrontal cortex function, and the ModBent, a measure that’s sensitive to dentate gyrus function. The flavanol intervention did not affect ModBent results or performance on the Flanker test after 1 year.

However, it was a different story for those with a poor diet at baseline. Researchers stratified participants into tertiles on the basis of diet quality as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores. Those in the lowest tertile had poorer baseline hippocampal-dependent memory performance but not memory related to the prefrontal cortex.

The flavanol intervention improved performance on the ModRey test, compared with placebo in participants in the low HEI tertile (overall effect: d = 0.086; P = .011) but not among those with a medium or high HEI at baseline.

“We confirmed that the flavanol intervention only benefits people who are relatively deficient at baseline,” said Dr. Small.

The correlation with hippocampal-dependent memory was confirmed in a subset of 1,361 study participants who provided a urine sample. Researchers measured urinary 5-(3′,4′-dihydroxyphenyl)-gamma-valerolactone metabolite (gVLM) concentrations, a validated biomarker of flavanol consumption.

After stratifying these results into tertiles, researchers found performance on the ModRey was significantly improved with the dietary flavanol intervention (overall effect: d = 0.141; P = .006) in the lowest gVLM tertile.
 

Memory restored

When participants in the lowest tertile consumed the supplement, “their flavanol levels went back to normal, and when that happened, their memory was restored,” said Dr. Small.

It appears that there is a sort of ceiling effect to the flavanol benefits. “It seems what you need to do is normalize your flavanol levels; if you go above normal, there was no evidence that your memory keeps on getting better,” said Dr. Small.

The study included only older adults, so it’s unclear what the impact of flavanol supplementation is in younger adults. But cognitive aging “begins its slippery side” in the 40s, said Dr. Small. “If this is truly a nutrient that is taken to prevent that slide from happening, it might be beneficial to start in our 40s.”

He recognized that the effect size is not large but said this is “very dependent” on baseline factors and most study participants had a rather healthy diet. “None of our participants were really highly deficient” in flavanols, he said.

“To see a stronger effect size, we need to do another study where we recruit people who are very low, truly deficient, in flavanols, and then see what happens.”

Showing that flavanols are linked to the hippocampal and not to the prefrontal component of cognitive aging “speaks to the mechanism,” said Dr. Small.

Though the exact mechanism linking flavanols with enhanced memory isn’t clear, there are some clues; for example, research suggests cognitive aging affects the dentate gyrus, a subregion of the hippocampus.

The flavanol supplements were well tolerated. “I can say with close to certainty that this is very safe,” said Dr. Small, adding the flavanols have now been used in numerous studies.

The findings suggest flavanol consumption might be part of future dietary guidelines. “I suspect that once there is sufficient evidence, flavanols will be part of the dietary recommendations for healthy aging,” said Dr. Small.
 

A word of caution

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, said that though science suggests a balanced diet is good for overall brain health, no single food, beverage, ingredient, vitamin, or supplement has yet been proven to prevent dementia, treat or cure Alzheimer’s, or benefit cognitive function or brain health.

Experts agree the best source of vitamins and other nutrients is from whole foods as part of a balanced diet. “We recognize that, for a variety of reasons, this may not always be possible,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, she noted, dietary supplements are not subject to the same rigorous review and regulation process as medications.

“The Alzheimer’s Association strongly encourages individuals to have conversations with their physicians about all medications and dietary supplements they are currently taking or interested in starting.” 

COSMOS is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars, company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Small reports receiving an unrestricted research grant from Mars.

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

Taking a daily flavanol supplement improves hippocampal-dependent memory in older adults who have a relatively poor diet, results of a large new study suggest.

There’s increasing evidence that certain nutrients are important for the aging body and brain, study investigator Scott Small, MD, the Boris and Rose Katz Professor of Neurology, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, told this news organization.

“With this new study, I think we can begin to say flavanols might be the first one that really is a nutrient for the aging brain.”

These findings, said Dr. Small, represent “the beginning of a new era” that will eventually lead to formal recommendations” related to ideal intake of flavanols to reduce cognitive aging.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
 

Better cognitive aging

Cognitive aging refers to the decline in cognitive abilities that are not thought to be caused by neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Cognitive aging targets two areas of the brain: the hippocampus, which is related to memory function, and the prefrontal cortex, which is related to attention and executive function.

Previous research has linked flavanols, which are found in foods like apples, pears, berries, and cocoa beans, to improved cognitive aging. The evidence shows that consuming these nutrients might be associated with the hippocampal-dependent memory component of cognitive aging.

The new study, known as COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study-Web (COSMOS-Web), included 3,562 generally healthy men and women, mean age 71 years, who were mostly well-educated and non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White individuals.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral flavanol-containing cocoa extract (500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin) or a placebo daily.

The primary endpoint was hippocampal-dependent memory at year 1 as assessed with the ModRey, a neuropsychological test designed to measure hippocampal function.

Results showed participants in both groups had a typical learning (practice) effect, with similar improvements (d = 0.025; P = .42).

Researchers used other tests to measure cognition: the Color/Directional Flanker Task, a measure of prefrontal cortex function, and the ModBent, a measure that’s sensitive to dentate gyrus function. The flavanol intervention did not affect ModBent results or performance on the Flanker test after 1 year.

However, it was a different story for those with a poor diet at baseline. Researchers stratified participants into tertiles on the basis of diet quality as measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores. Those in the lowest tertile had poorer baseline hippocampal-dependent memory performance but not memory related to the prefrontal cortex.

The flavanol intervention improved performance on the ModRey test, compared with placebo in participants in the low HEI tertile (overall effect: d = 0.086; P = .011) but not among those with a medium or high HEI at baseline.

“We confirmed that the flavanol intervention only benefits people who are relatively deficient at baseline,” said Dr. Small.

The correlation with hippocampal-dependent memory was confirmed in a subset of 1,361 study participants who provided a urine sample. Researchers measured urinary 5-(3′,4′-dihydroxyphenyl)-gamma-valerolactone metabolite (gVLM) concentrations, a validated biomarker of flavanol consumption.

After stratifying these results into tertiles, researchers found performance on the ModRey was significantly improved with the dietary flavanol intervention (overall effect: d = 0.141; P = .006) in the lowest gVLM tertile.
 

Memory restored

When participants in the lowest tertile consumed the supplement, “their flavanol levels went back to normal, and when that happened, their memory was restored,” said Dr. Small.

It appears that there is a sort of ceiling effect to the flavanol benefits. “It seems what you need to do is normalize your flavanol levels; if you go above normal, there was no evidence that your memory keeps on getting better,” said Dr. Small.

The study included only older adults, so it’s unclear what the impact of flavanol supplementation is in younger adults. But cognitive aging “begins its slippery side” in the 40s, said Dr. Small. “If this is truly a nutrient that is taken to prevent that slide from happening, it might be beneficial to start in our 40s.”

He recognized that the effect size is not large but said this is “very dependent” on baseline factors and most study participants had a rather healthy diet. “None of our participants were really highly deficient” in flavanols, he said.

“To see a stronger effect size, we need to do another study where we recruit people who are very low, truly deficient, in flavanols, and then see what happens.”

Showing that flavanols are linked to the hippocampal and not to the prefrontal component of cognitive aging “speaks to the mechanism,” said Dr. Small.

Though the exact mechanism linking flavanols with enhanced memory isn’t clear, there are some clues; for example, research suggests cognitive aging affects the dentate gyrus, a subregion of the hippocampus.

The flavanol supplements were well tolerated. “I can say with close to certainty that this is very safe,” said Dr. Small, adding the flavanols have now been used in numerous studies.

The findings suggest flavanol consumption might be part of future dietary guidelines. “I suspect that once there is sufficient evidence, flavanols will be part of the dietary recommendations for healthy aging,” said Dr. Small.
 

A word of caution

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations, Alzheimer’s Association, said that though science suggests a balanced diet is good for overall brain health, no single food, beverage, ingredient, vitamin, or supplement has yet been proven to prevent dementia, treat or cure Alzheimer’s, or benefit cognitive function or brain health.

Experts agree the best source of vitamins and other nutrients is from whole foods as part of a balanced diet. “We recognize that, for a variety of reasons, this may not always be possible,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, she noted, dietary supplements are not subject to the same rigorous review and regulation process as medications.

“The Alzheimer’s Association strongly encourages individuals to have conversations with their physicians about all medications and dietary supplements they are currently taking or interested in starting.” 

COSMOS is supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars, company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities, which included infrastructure support and the donation of study pills and packaging. Small reports receiving an unrestricted research grant from Mars.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

CHICAGO – Sunscreen recommendations are most effective when a multitude of factors are considered, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said during a presentation on personal photoprotection at the inaugural Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium.

Among the first factors physicians should consider before recommending sunscreen are a patient’s Fitzpatrick skin type, risks for burning or tanning, underlying skin disorders, and medications the patient is taking, Dr. Taylor, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLIVE! If patients are on hypertensives, for example, medications can make them more photosensitive.

MedscapeLIVE!

Consider skin type

Dr. Taylor said she was dismayed by the results of a recent study, which found that 43% of dermatologists who responded to a survey reported that they never, rarely, or only sometimes took a patient’s skin type into account when making sunscreen recommendations. The article is referenced in a 2022 expert panel consensus paper she coauthored on photoprotection “for skin of all color.” But she pointed out that considering skin type alone is inadequate.

Questions for patients in joint decision-making should include lifestyle and work choices such as whether they work inside or outside, and how much sun exposure they get in a typical day. Heat and humidity levels should also be considered as should a patient’s susceptibility to dyspigmentation. “That could be overall darkening of the skin, mottled hyperpigmentation, actinic dyspigmentation, and, of course, propensity for skin cancer,” she said.
 

Use differs by race

Dr. Taylor, who is also vice chair for diversity, equity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out that sunscreen use differs considerably by race.

In study of 8,952 adults in the United States who reported that they were sun sensitive found that a subset of adults with skin of color were significantly less likely to use sunscreen when compared with non-Hispanic White adults: Non-Hispanic Black (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43); non-Hispanic Asian (aOR. 0.54); and Hispanic (aOR, 0.70) adults.

In the study, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults were significantly less likely to use sunscreens with an SPF greater than 15. In addition, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic adults were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to wear long sleeves when outside. Such differences are important to keep in mind when advising patients about sunscreens, she said.
 

Protection for lighter-colored skin

Dr. Taylor said that, for patients with lighter skin tones, “we really want to protect against ultraviolet B as well as ultraviolet A, particularly ultraviolet A2. Ultraviolet radiation is going to cause DNA damage.” Patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, or III are most susceptible to the effects of UVB with sunburn inflammation, which will cause erythema and tanning, and immunosuppression.

“For those who are I, II, and III, we do want to recommend a broad-spectrum, photostable sunscreen with a critical wavelength of 370 nanometers, which is going to protect from both UVB and UVA2,” she said.

Sunscreen recommendations are meant to be paired with advice to avoid midday sun from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., wearing protective clothing and accessories, and seeking shade, she noted.

Dr. Taylor said, for those patients with lighter skin who are more susceptible to photodamage and premature aging, physicians should recommend sunscreens that contain DNA repair enzymes such as photolyases and sunscreens that contain antioxidants that can prevent or reverse DNA damage. “The exogenous form of these lyases have been manufactured and added to sunscreens,” Dr. Taylor said. “They’re readily available in the United States. That is something to consider for patients with significant photodamage.”

Retinoids can also help alleviate or reverse photodamage, she added.
 

Protection for darker-colored skin

“Many people of color do not believe they need sunscreen,” Dr. Taylor said. But studies show that, although there may be more intrinsic protection, sunscreen is still needed.

Over 30 years ago, Halder and colleagues reported that melanin in skin of color can filter two to five times more UV radiation, and in a paper on the photoprotective role of melanin, Kaidbey and colleagues found that skin types V and VI had an intrinsic SPF of 13 when compared with those who have lighter complexions, which had an SPF of 3.

Sunburns seem to occur less frequently in people with skin of color, but that may be because erythema is less apparent in people with darker skin tones or because of differences in personal definitions of sunburn, Dr. Taylor said.

“Skin of color can and does sustain sunburns and sunscreen will help prevent that,” she said, adding that a recommendation of an SPF 30 is likely sufficient for these patients. Dr. Taylor noted that sunscreens for patients with darker skin often cost substantially more than those for lighter skin, and that should be considered in recommendations.

Tinted sunscreens

Dr. Taylor said that, while broad-spectrum photostable sunscreens protect against UVB and UVA 2, they don’t protect from visible light and UVA1. Two methods to add that protection are using inorganic tinted sunscreens that contain iron oxide or pigmentary titanium dioxide. Dr. Taylor was a coauthor of a practical guide to tinted sunscreens published in 2022.

“For iron oxide, we want a concentration of 3% or greater,” she said, adding that the percentage often is not known because if it is contained in a sunscreen, it is listed as an inactive ingredient.

Another method to address visible light and UVA1 is the use of antioxidant-containing sunscreens with vitamin E, vitamin C, or licochalcone A, Dr. Taylor said.

During the question-and-answer period following her presentation, Amit Pandya, MD, adjunct professor of dermatology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, asked why “every makeup, every sunscreen, just says iron oxide,” since it is known that visible light will cause pigmentation, especially in those with darker skin tones.

He urged pushing for a law that would require listing the percentage of iron oxide on products to assure it is sufficient, according to what the literature recommends.

Conference Chair Pearl Grimes, MD, director of the Vitiligo and Pigmentation Institute of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that she recommends tinted sunscreens almost exclusively for her patients, but those with darker skin colors struggle to match color.

Dr. Taylor referred to an analysis published in 2022 of 58 over-the counter sunscreens, which found that only 38% of tinted sunscreens was available in more than one shade, “which is a problem for many of our patients.” She said that providing samples with different hues and tactile sensations may help patients find the right product.

Dr. Taylor disclosed being on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Avita Medical, Beiersdorf, Biorez, Eli Lily, EPI Health, Evolus, Galderma, Hugel America, Johnson and Johnson, L’Oreal USA, MedScape, Pfizer, Scientis US, UCB, Vichy Laboratories. She is a consultant for Arcutis Biothermapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Dior, and Sanofi. She has done contracted research for Allergan Aesthetics, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Croma-Pharma, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and has an ownership interest in Armis Scientific, GloGetter, and Piction Health.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

CHICAGO – Sunscreen recommendations are most effective when a multitude of factors are considered, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said during a presentation on personal photoprotection at the inaugural Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium.

Among the first factors physicians should consider before recommending sunscreen are a patient’s Fitzpatrick skin type, risks for burning or tanning, underlying skin disorders, and medications the patient is taking, Dr. Taylor, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLIVE! If patients are on hypertensives, for example, medications can make them more photosensitive.

MedscapeLIVE!

Consider skin type

Dr. Taylor said she was dismayed by the results of a recent study, which found that 43% of dermatologists who responded to a survey reported that they never, rarely, or only sometimes took a patient’s skin type into account when making sunscreen recommendations. The article is referenced in a 2022 expert panel consensus paper she coauthored on photoprotection “for skin of all color.” But she pointed out that considering skin type alone is inadequate.

Questions for patients in joint decision-making should include lifestyle and work choices such as whether they work inside or outside, and how much sun exposure they get in a typical day. Heat and humidity levels should also be considered as should a patient’s susceptibility to dyspigmentation. “That could be overall darkening of the skin, mottled hyperpigmentation, actinic dyspigmentation, and, of course, propensity for skin cancer,” she said.
 

Use differs by race

Dr. Taylor, who is also vice chair for diversity, equity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out that sunscreen use differs considerably by race.

In study of 8,952 adults in the United States who reported that they were sun sensitive found that a subset of adults with skin of color were significantly less likely to use sunscreen when compared with non-Hispanic White adults: Non-Hispanic Black (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43); non-Hispanic Asian (aOR. 0.54); and Hispanic (aOR, 0.70) adults.

In the study, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults were significantly less likely to use sunscreens with an SPF greater than 15. In addition, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic adults were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to wear long sleeves when outside. Such differences are important to keep in mind when advising patients about sunscreens, she said.
 

Protection for lighter-colored skin

Dr. Taylor said that, for patients with lighter skin tones, “we really want to protect against ultraviolet B as well as ultraviolet A, particularly ultraviolet A2. Ultraviolet radiation is going to cause DNA damage.” Patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, or III are most susceptible to the effects of UVB with sunburn inflammation, which will cause erythema and tanning, and immunosuppression.

“For those who are I, II, and III, we do want to recommend a broad-spectrum, photostable sunscreen with a critical wavelength of 370 nanometers, which is going to protect from both UVB and UVA2,” she said.

Sunscreen recommendations are meant to be paired with advice to avoid midday sun from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., wearing protective clothing and accessories, and seeking shade, she noted.

Dr. Taylor said, for those patients with lighter skin who are more susceptible to photodamage and premature aging, physicians should recommend sunscreens that contain DNA repair enzymes such as photolyases and sunscreens that contain antioxidants that can prevent or reverse DNA damage. “The exogenous form of these lyases have been manufactured and added to sunscreens,” Dr. Taylor said. “They’re readily available in the United States. That is something to consider for patients with significant photodamage.”

Retinoids can also help alleviate or reverse photodamage, she added.
 

Protection for darker-colored skin

“Many people of color do not believe they need sunscreen,” Dr. Taylor said. But studies show that, although there may be more intrinsic protection, sunscreen is still needed.

Over 30 years ago, Halder and colleagues reported that melanin in skin of color can filter two to five times more UV radiation, and in a paper on the photoprotective role of melanin, Kaidbey and colleagues found that skin types V and VI had an intrinsic SPF of 13 when compared with those who have lighter complexions, which had an SPF of 3.

Sunburns seem to occur less frequently in people with skin of color, but that may be because erythema is less apparent in people with darker skin tones or because of differences in personal definitions of sunburn, Dr. Taylor said.

“Skin of color can and does sustain sunburns and sunscreen will help prevent that,” she said, adding that a recommendation of an SPF 30 is likely sufficient for these patients. Dr. Taylor noted that sunscreens for patients with darker skin often cost substantially more than those for lighter skin, and that should be considered in recommendations.

Tinted sunscreens

Dr. Taylor said that, while broad-spectrum photostable sunscreens protect against UVB and UVA 2, they don’t protect from visible light and UVA1. Two methods to add that protection are using inorganic tinted sunscreens that contain iron oxide or pigmentary titanium dioxide. Dr. Taylor was a coauthor of a practical guide to tinted sunscreens published in 2022.

“For iron oxide, we want a concentration of 3% or greater,” she said, adding that the percentage often is not known because if it is contained in a sunscreen, it is listed as an inactive ingredient.

Another method to address visible light and UVA1 is the use of antioxidant-containing sunscreens with vitamin E, vitamin C, or licochalcone A, Dr. Taylor said.

During the question-and-answer period following her presentation, Amit Pandya, MD, adjunct professor of dermatology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, asked why “every makeup, every sunscreen, just says iron oxide,” since it is known that visible light will cause pigmentation, especially in those with darker skin tones.

He urged pushing for a law that would require listing the percentage of iron oxide on products to assure it is sufficient, according to what the literature recommends.

Conference Chair Pearl Grimes, MD, director of the Vitiligo and Pigmentation Institute of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that she recommends tinted sunscreens almost exclusively for her patients, but those with darker skin colors struggle to match color.

Dr. Taylor referred to an analysis published in 2022 of 58 over-the counter sunscreens, which found that only 38% of tinted sunscreens was available in more than one shade, “which is a problem for many of our patients.” She said that providing samples with different hues and tactile sensations may help patients find the right product.

Dr. Taylor disclosed being on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Avita Medical, Beiersdorf, Biorez, Eli Lily, EPI Health, Evolus, Galderma, Hugel America, Johnson and Johnson, L’Oreal USA, MedScape, Pfizer, Scientis US, UCB, Vichy Laboratories. She is a consultant for Arcutis Biothermapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Dior, and Sanofi. She has done contracted research for Allergan Aesthetics, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Croma-Pharma, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and has an ownership interest in Armis Scientific, GloGetter, and Piction Health.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

CHICAGO – Sunscreen recommendations are most effective when a multitude of factors are considered, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said during a presentation on personal photoprotection at the inaugural Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium.

Among the first factors physicians should consider before recommending sunscreen are a patient’s Fitzpatrick skin type, risks for burning or tanning, underlying skin disorders, and medications the patient is taking, Dr. Taylor, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLIVE! If patients are on hypertensives, for example, medications can make them more photosensitive.

MedscapeLIVE!

Consider skin type

Dr. Taylor said she was dismayed by the results of a recent study, which found that 43% of dermatologists who responded to a survey reported that they never, rarely, or only sometimes took a patient’s skin type into account when making sunscreen recommendations. The article is referenced in a 2022 expert panel consensus paper she coauthored on photoprotection “for skin of all color.” But she pointed out that considering skin type alone is inadequate.

Questions for patients in joint decision-making should include lifestyle and work choices such as whether they work inside or outside, and how much sun exposure they get in a typical day. Heat and humidity levels should also be considered as should a patient’s susceptibility to dyspigmentation. “That could be overall darkening of the skin, mottled hyperpigmentation, actinic dyspigmentation, and, of course, propensity for skin cancer,” she said.
 

Use differs by race

Dr. Taylor, who is also vice chair for diversity, equity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out that sunscreen use differs considerably by race.

In study of 8,952 adults in the United States who reported that they were sun sensitive found that a subset of adults with skin of color were significantly less likely to use sunscreen when compared with non-Hispanic White adults: Non-Hispanic Black (adjusted odds ratio, 0.43); non-Hispanic Asian (aOR. 0.54); and Hispanic (aOR, 0.70) adults.

In the study, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults were significantly less likely to use sunscreens with an SPF greater than 15. In addition, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic adults were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to wear long sleeves when outside. Such differences are important to keep in mind when advising patients about sunscreens, she said.
 

Protection for lighter-colored skin

Dr. Taylor said that, for patients with lighter skin tones, “we really want to protect against ultraviolet B as well as ultraviolet A, particularly ultraviolet A2. Ultraviolet radiation is going to cause DNA damage.” Patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, or III are most susceptible to the effects of UVB with sunburn inflammation, which will cause erythema and tanning, and immunosuppression.

“For those who are I, II, and III, we do want to recommend a broad-spectrum, photostable sunscreen with a critical wavelength of 370 nanometers, which is going to protect from both UVB and UVA2,” she said.

Sunscreen recommendations are meant to be paired with advice to avoid midday sun from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., wearing protective clothing and accessories, and seeking shade, she noted.

Dr. Taylor said, for those patients with lighter skin who are more susceptible to photodamage and premature aging, physicians should recommend sunscreens that contain DNA repair enzymes such as photolyases and sunscreens that contain antioxidants that can prevent or reverse DNA damage. “The exogenous form of these lyases have been manufactured and added to sunscreens,” Dr. Taylor said. “They’re readily available in the United States. That is something to consider for patients with significant photodamage.”

Retinoids can also help alleviate or reverse photodamage, she added.
 

Protection for darker-colored skin

“Many people of color do not believe they need sunscreen,” Dr. Taylor said. But studies show that, although there may be more intrinsic protection, sunscreen is still needed.

Over 30 years ago, Halder and colleagues reported that melanin in skin of color can filter two to five times more UV radiation, and in a paper on the photoprotective role of melanin, Kaidbey and colleagues found that skin types V and VI had an intrinsic SPF of 13 when compared with those who have lighter complexions, which had an SPF of 3.

Sunburns seem to occur less frequently in people with skin of color, but that may be because erythema is less apparent in people with darker skin tones or because of differences in personal definitions of sunburn, Dr. Taylor said.

“Skin of color can and does sustain sunburns and sunscreen will help prevent that,” she said, adding that a recommendation of an SPF 30 is likely sufficient for these patients. Dr. Taylor noted that sunscreens for patients with darker skin often cost substantially more than those for lighter skin, and that should be considered in recommendations.

Tinted sunscreens

Dr. Taylor said that, while broad-spectrum photostable sunscreens protect against UVB and UVA 2, they don’t protect from visible light and UVA1. Two methods to add that protection are using inorganic tinted sunscreens that contain iron oxide or pigmentary titanium dioxide. Dr. Taylor was a coauthor of a practical guide to tinted sunscreens published in 2022.

“For iron oxide, we want a concentration of 3% or greater,” she said, adding that the percentage often is not known because if it is contained in a sunscreen, it is listed as an inactive ingredient.

Another method to address visible light and UVA1 is the use of antioxidant-containing sunscreens with vitamin E, vitamin C, or licochalcone A, Dr. Taylor said.

During the question-and-answer period following her presentation, Amit Pandya, MD, adjunct professor of dermatology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, asked why “every makeup, every sunscreen, just says iron oxide,” since it is known that visible light will cause pigmentation, especially in those with darker skin tones.

He urged pushing for a law that would require listing the percentage of iron oxide on products to assure it is sufficient, according to what the literature recommends.

Conference Chair Pearl Grimes, MD, director of the Vitiligo and Pigmentation Institute of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that she recommends tinted sunscreens almost exclusively for her patients, but those with darker skin colors struggle to match color.

Dr. Taylor referred to an analysis published in 2022 of 58 over-the counter sunscreens, which found that only 38% of tinted sunscreens was available in more than one shade, “which is a problem for many of our patients.” She said that providing samples with different hues and tactile sensations may help patients find the right product.

Dr. Taylor disclosed being on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Avita Medical, Beiersdorf, Biorez, Eli Lily, EPI Health, Evolus, Galderma, Hugel America, Johnson and Johnson, L’Oreal USA, MedScape, Pfizer, Scientis US, UCB, Vichy Laboratories. She is a consultant for Arcutis Biothermapeutics, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Dior, and Sanofi. She has done contracted research for Allergan Aesthetics, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Croma-Pharma, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and has an ownership interest in Armis Scientific, GloGetter, and Piction Health.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The Food and Drug Administration is warning people to avoid using compounded medicines as substitutes for the popular weight loss and diabetes drugs Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy.

Compounded medicines are not FDA approved but are allowed to be made during an official drug shortage. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently on the FDA’s shortage list, but the federal agency warned that it has received reports of people experiencing “adverse events” after using compounded versions of the drugs. (The FDA did not provide details of those events or where the drugs involved were compounded.)

Agency officials are concerned that the compounded versions may contain ingredients that sound like the brand name drugs’ active ingredient, semaglutide, but are different because the ingredients are in salt form.

“Patients should be aware that some products sold as ‘semaglutide’ may not contain the same active ingredient as FDA-approved semaglutide products and may be the salt formulations,” the FDA warning stated. “Products containing these salts, such as semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate, have not been shown to be safe and effective.”

The agency said salt forms don’t meet the criteria for compounding during a shortage and sent a letter to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy expressing “concerns with use of the salt forms in compounded products.”

Patients and health care providers should be aware that “compounded drugs are not FDA approved, and the agency does not verify the safety or effectiveness of compounded drugs,” the FDA explained in its statement.

The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding’s board of directors said in a statement that some compounders’ arguments for the suitability of semaglutide sodium are “worthy of discussion,” but the board did not endorse those arguments.

For people who use an online pharmacy, the FDA recommends checking the FDA’s website BeSafeRx to check its credentials.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is warning people to avoid using compounded medicines as substitutes for the popular weight loss and diabetes drugs Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy.

Compounded medicines are not FDA approved but are allowed to be made during an official drug shortage. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently on the FDA’s shortage list, but the federal agency warned that it has received reports of people experiencing “adverse events” after using compounded versions of the drugs. (The FDA did not provide details of those events or where the drugs involved were compounded.)

Agency officials are concerned that the compounded versions may contain ingredients that sound like the brand name drugs’ active ingredient, semaglutide, but are different because the ingredients are in salt form.

“Patients should be aware that some products sold as ‘semaglutide’ may not contain the same active ingredient as FDA-approved semaglutide products and may be the salt formulations,” the FDA warning stated. “Products containing these salts, such as semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate, have not been shown to be safe and effective.”

The agency said salt forms don’t meet the criteria for compounding during a shortage and sent a letter to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy expressing “concerns with use of the salt forms in compounded products.”

Patients and health care providers should be aware that “compounded drugs are not FDA approved, and the agency does not verify the safety or effectiveness of compounded drugs,” the FDA explained in its statement.

The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding’s board of directors said in a statement that some compounders’ arguments for the suitability of semaglutide sodium are “worthy of discussion,” but the board did not endorse those arguments.

For people who use an online pharmacy, the FDA recommends checking the FDA’s website BeSafeRx to check its credentials.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is warning people to avoid using compounded medicines as substitutes for the popular weight loss and diabetes drugs Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy.

Compounded medicines are not FDA approved but are allowed to be made during an official drug shortage. Ozempic and Wegovy are currently on the FDA’s shortage list, but the federal agency warned that it has received reports of people experiencing “adverse events” after using compounded versions of the drugs. (The FDA did not provide details of those events or where the drugs involved were compounded.)

Agency officials are concerned that the compounded versions may contain ingredients that sound like the brand name drugs’ active ingredient, semaglutide, but are different because the ingredients are in salt form.

“Patients should be aware that some products sold as ‘semaglutide’ may not contain the same active ingredient as FDA-approved semaglutide products and may be the salt formulations,” the FDA warning stated. “Products containing these salts, such as semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate, have not been shown to be safe and effective.”

The agency said salt forms don’t meet the criteria for compounding during a shortage and sent a letter to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy expressing “concerns with use of the salt forms in compounded products.”

Patients and health care providers should be aware that “compounded drugs are not FDA approved, and the agency does not verify the safety or effectiveness of compounded drugs,” the FDA explained in its statement.

The Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding’s board of directors said in a statement that some compounders’ arguments for the suitability of semaglutide sodium are “worthy of discussion,” but the board did not endorse those arguments.

For people who use an online pharmacy, the FDA recommends checking the FDA’s website BeSafeRx to check its credentials.

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

A new study reveals health concerns about the sugar substitute sucralose so alarming that researchers said people should stop eating it and the government should regulate it more.

Sucralose is sold under the brand name Splenda and is also used as an ingredient in packaged foods and beverages.

The findings were published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. The researchers conducted a series of laboratory experiments exposing human blood cells and gut tissue to sucralose-6-acetate. The findings build on previous research that linked sucralose to gut health problems.

The researchers found that sucralose causes DNA to break apart, putting people at risk for disease. They also linked sucralose to leaky gut syndrome, which means the lining of the intestines are worn down and become permeable. Symptoms are a burning sensation, painful digestion, diarrhea, gas, and bloating.

When a substance damages DNA, it is called genotoxic. Researchers have found that eating sucralose results in the body producing a substance called sucralose-6-acetate, which the new study now shows is genotoxic. The researchers also found sucralose-6-acetate in trace amounts in off-the-shelf products that are so high, they would exceed the safety levels currently allowed in Europe.

“It’s time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of sucralose because the evidence is mounting that it carries significant risks. If nothing else, I encourage people to avoid products containing sucralose,” researcher Susan Schiffman, PhD, adjunct professor of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, said in a statement. “It’s something you should not be eating.”

The FDA says sucralose is safe, describing it as 600 times sweeter than table sugar and used in “baked goods, beverages, chewing gum, gelatins, and frozen dairy desserts.”

“To determine the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed more than 110 studies designed to identify possible toxic effects, including studies on the reproductive and nervous systems, carcinogenicity, and metabolism,” the agency explained on its website. “The FDA also reviewed human clinical trials to address metabolism and effects on patients with diabetes.”

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new study reveals health concerns about the sugar substitute sucralose so alarming that researchers said people should stop eating it and the government should regulate it more.

Sucralose is sold under the brand name Splenda and is also used as an ingredient in packaged foods and beverages.

The findings were published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. The researchers conducted a series of laboratory experiments exposing human blood cells and gut tissue to sucralose-6-acetate. The findings build on previous research that linked sucralose to gut health problems.

The researchers found that sucralose causes DNA to break apart, putting people at risk for disease. They also linked sucralose to leaky gut syndrome, which means the lining of the intestines are worn down and become permeable. Symptoms are a burning sensation, painful digestion, diarrhea, gas, and bloating.

When a substance damages DNA, it is called genotoxic. Researchers have found that eating sucralose results in the body producing a substance called sucralose-6-acetate, which the new study now shows is genotoxic. The researchers also found sucralose-6-acetate in trace amounts in off-the-shelf products that are so high, they would exceed the safety levels currently allowed in Europe.

“It’s time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of sucralose because the evidence is mounting that it carries significant risks. If nothing else, I encourage people to avoid products containing sucralose,” researcher Susan Schiffman, PhD, adjunct professor of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, said in a statement. “It’s something you should not be eating.”

The FDA says sucralose is safe, describing it as 600 times sweeter than table sugar and used in “baked goods, beverages, chewing gum, gelatins, and frozen dairy desserts.”

“To determine the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed more than 110 studies designed to identify possible toxic effects, including studies on the reproductive and nervous systems, carcinogenicity, and metabolism,” the agency explained on its website. “The FDA also reviewed human clinical trials to address metabolism and effects on patients with diabetes.”

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new study reveals health concerns about the sugar substitute sucralose so alarming that researchers said people should stop eating it and the government should regulate it more.

Sucralose is sold under the brand name Splenda and is also used as an ingredient in packaged foods and beverages.

The findings were published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. The researchers conducted a series of laboratory experiments exposing human blood cells and gut tissue to sucralose-6-acetate. The findings build on previous research that linked sucralose to gut health problems.

The researchers found that sucralose causes DNA to break apart, putting people at risk for disease. They also linked sucralose to leaky gut syndrome, which means the lining of the intestines are worn down and become permeable. Symptoms are a burning sensation, painful digestion, diarrhea, gas, and bloating.

When a substance damages DNA, it is called genotoxic. Researchers have found that eating sucralose results in the body producing a substance called sucralose-6-acetate, which the new study now shows is genotoxic. The researchers also found sucralose-6-acetate in trace amounts in off-the-shelf products that are so high, they would exceed the safety levels currently allowed in Europe.

“It’s time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of sucralose because the evidence is mounting that it carries significant risks. If nothing else, I encourage people to avoid products containing sucralose,” researcher Susan Schiffman, PhD, adjunct professor of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, said in a statement. “It’s something you should not be eating.”

The FDA says sucralose is safe, describing it as 600 times sweeter than table sugar and used in “baked goods, beverages, chewing gum, gelatins, and frozen dairy desserts.”

“To determine the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed more than 110 studies designed to identify possible toxic effects, including studies on the reproductive and nervous systems, carcinogenicity, and metabolism,” the agency explained on its website. “The FDA also reviewed human clinical trials to address metabolism and effects on patients with diabetes.”

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.