Clinician Reviews

A healthy woman in her 60s presented to the clinic with a 1-month history of red, itchy, and slightly painful nodules on the scalp and back. The patient had travelled to Belize for a vacation in the weeks prior to the onset of the lesions. She was initially given a course of cephalexin for presumed furunculosis at another clinic, without improvement.

Examination revealed inflamed nodules with a central open pore on the left upper back (FIGURE 1) and the occipital scalp. Notably, when the lesions were observed with a dermatoscope, intermittent air bubbles were seen through the skin opening.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Furuncular myiasis

Given the patient’s clinical presentation and travel history, furuncular myiasis infestation was suspected and confirmed by punch biopsy. Pathologic exam revealed botfly larvae in both wounds, consistent with the human botfly, Dermatobia hominis (FIGURE 2). Myiasis is not common in the United States but should be suspected in patients who have recently traveled to tropical or subtropical areas. Furuncular myiasis describes the condition in which fly larvae penetrate healthy skin in a localized fashion, leading to the development of a ­furuncle-like nodule with 1 or more larvae within it.

Dermatobia hominis is the most common causative organism for furuncular myiasis in the regions of the Americas. Patients typically present with 1 lesion on an exposed part of the body (eg, scalp, face, extremities). The lesions typically contain a central pore with purulent or serosanguinous exudate.¹ Upon dermatoscopic inspection, one can often see the posterior part of the larva or the respiratory spiracles, which look like tiny black dots on the surface of the wound. The organism may also be indirectly viewed through respiratory bubble formation within the exudate.^1,2 Diagnosis is confirmed by extracting the larvae from the wound and having the species identified by an experienced pathologist or parasitologist.

Mode of transmission

Phoresis is the name of the process by which Dermatobia hominis invades the skin.³ The female fly lays her eggs onto captured mosquitos using a quick-drying adhesive. The eggs are then transferred to the host by a mosquito bite. The host’s body heat induces egg hatching, and the larvae burrow into follicular openings or skin perforations. This leads to the development of a small erythematous papule, which can further lead to a furuncle-like nodule with a central pore that allows the organism to respirate. When ready to pupate, the larvae work their way to the skin surface and drop to the soil, where they can further develop. After pupation, the fly hatches and develops into an adult, and the cycle repeats.

Common infectious and inflammatory lesions are in the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis includes bacterial abscess, exaggerated arthropod reaction, and ruptured epidermal cyst. With our patient, the travel history and unique exam findings led to the suspicion of myiasis.

Bacterial abscess is likely to have more notable purulence with response to appropriate oral antibiotics and no bubbling phenomenon on exam. It is also unlikely to be present for 1 month without progressive worsening.

Continue to: Exaggerated arthropod reaction

Exaggerated arthropod reaction usually manifests as a smooth, red, papular lesion without bubble formation from a central pore.

Ruptured epidermal cyst would be considered if there was a known preexisting cyst that recently changed. No bubble formation would be observed from the central pore.

Extraction is the treatment of choice

Treatment of furuncular myiasis involves removing the larvae or forcing them out of the lesion. Wounds can be covered with a substance, such as petrolatum, nail polish, beeswax, paraffin, or mineral oil, to block respiration.³ Occlusion may be needed for 24 hours to create adequate localized hypoxia to force the larvae to migrate from the wound and allow for easier manual extraction. Surgical removal of the larvae is also effective. A cruciate incision can be made adjacent to the central pore to avoid damaging the organisms.³ A topical, broad-based antiparasitic, such as a 10% ivermectin solution, has also been successfully used to treat furuncular myiasis. This approach works by either inducing larval migration outward or simply killing the larvae.³

Our patient recovered well after we performed a punch biopsy to make a larger wound opening and remove the intact larvae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Richard Pollack, PhD, at IdentifyUS, LLC, for providing the botfly larvae photo.

A healthy woman in her 60s presented to the clinic with a 1-month history of red, itchy, and slightly painful nodules on the scalp and back. The patient had travelled to Belize for a vacation in the weeks prior to the onset of the lesions. She was initially given a course of cephalexin for presumed furunculosis at another clinic, without improvement.

Examination revealed inflamed nodules with a central open pore on the left upper back (FIGURE 1) and the occipital scalp. Notably, when the lesions were observed with a dermatoscope, intermittent air bubbles were seen through the skin opening.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Furuncular myiasis

Given the patient’s clinical presentation and travel history, furuncular myiasis infestation was suspected and confirmed by punch biopsy. Pathologic exam revealed botfly larvae in both wounds, consistent with the human botfly, Dermatobia hominis (FIGURE 2). Myiasis is not common in the United States but should be suspected in patients who have recently traveled to tropical or subtropical areas. Furuncular myiasis describes the condition in which fly larvae penetrate healthy skin in a localized fashion, leading to the development of a ­furuncle-like nodule with 1 or more larvae within it.

Dermatobia hominis is the most common causative organism for furuncular myiasis in the regions of the Americas. Patients typically present with 1 lesion on an exposed part of the body (eg, scalp, face, extremities). The lesions typically contain a central pore with purulent or serosanguinous exudate.¹ Upon dermatoscopic inspection, one can often see the posterior part of the larva or the respiratory spiracles, which look like tiny black dots on the surface of the wound. The organism may also be indirectly viewed through respiratory bubble formation within the exudate.^1,2 Diagnosis is confirmed by extracting the larvae from the wound and having the species identified by an experienced pathologist or parasitologist.

Mode of transmission

Phoresis is the name of the process by which Dermatobia hominis invades the skin.³ The female fly lays her eggs onto captured mosquitos using a quick-drying adhesive. The eggs are then transferred to the host by a mosquito bite. The host’s body heat induces egg hatching, and the larvae burrow into follicular openings or skin perforations. This leads to the development of a small erythematous papule, which can further lead to a furuncle-like nodule with a central pore that allows the organism to respirate. When ready to pupate, the larvae work their way to the skin surface and drop to the soil, where they can further develop. After pupation, the fly hatches and develops into an adult, and the cycle repeats.

Common infectious and inflammatory lesions are in the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis includes bacterial abscess, exaggerated arthropod reaction, and ruptured epidermal cyst. With our patient, the travel history and unique exam findings led to the suspicion of myiasis.

Bacterial abscess is likely to have more notable purulence with response to appropriate oral antibiotics and no bubbling phenomenon on exam. It is also unlikely to be present for 1 month without progressive worsening.

Continue to: Exaggerated arthropod reaction

Exaggerated arthropod reaction usually manifests as a smooth, red, papular lesion without bubble formation from a central pore.

Ruptured epidermal cyst would be considered if there was a known preexisting cyst that recently changed. No bubble formation would be observed from the central pore.

Extraction is the treatment of choice

Treatment of furuncular myiasis involves removing the larvae or forcing them out of the lesion. Wounds can be covered with a substance, such as petrolatum, nail polish, beeswax, paraffin, or mineral oil, to block respiration.³ Occlusion may be needed for 24 hours to create adequate localized hypoxia to force the larvae to migrate from the wound and allow for easier manual extraction. Surgical removal of the larvae is also effective. A cruciate incision can be made adjacent to the central pore to avoid damaging the organisms.³ A topical, broad-based antiparasitic, such as a 10% ivermectin solution, has also been successfully used to treat furuncular myiasis. This approach works by either inducing larval migration outward or simply killing the larvae.³

Our patient recovered well after we performed a punch biopsy to make a larger wound opening and remove the intact larvae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Richard Pollack, PhD, at IdentifyUS, LLC, for providing the botfly larvae photo.

A healthy woman in her 60s presented to the clinic with a 1-month history of red, itchy, and slightly painful nodules on the scalp and back. The patient had travelled to Belize for a vacation in the weeks prior to the onset of the lesions. She was initially given a course of cephalexin for presumed furunculosis at another clinic, without improvement.

Examination revealed inflamed nodules with a central open pore on the left upper back (FIGURE 1) and the occipital scalp. Notably, when the lesions were observed with a dermatoscope, intermittent air bubbles were seen through the skin opening.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Furuncular myiasis

Given the patient’s clinical presentation and travel history, furuncular myiasis infestation was suspected and confirmed by punch biopsy. Pathologic exam revealed botfly larvae in both wounds, consistent with the human botfly, Dermatobia hominis (FIGURE 2). Myiasis is not common in the United States but should be suspected in patients who have recently traveled to tropical or subtropical areas. Furuncular myiasis describes the condition in which fly larvae penetrate healthy skin in a localized fashion, leading to the development of a ­furuncle-like nodule with 1 or more larvae within it.

Dermatobia hominis is the most common causative organism for furuncular myiasis in the regions of the Americas. Patients typically present with 1 lesion on an exposed part of the body (eg, scalp, face, extremities). The lesions typically contain a central pore with purulent or serosanguinous exudate.¹ Upon dermatoscopic inspection, one can often see the posterior part of the larva or the respiratory spiracles, which look like tiny black dots on the surface of the wound. The organism may also be indirectly viewed through respiratory bubble formation within the exudate.^1,2 Diagnosis is confirmed by extracting the larvae from the wound and having the species identified by an experienced pathologist or parasitologist.

Mode of transmission

Phoresis is the name of the process by which Dermatobia hominis invades the skin.³ The female fly lays her eggs onto captured mosquitos using a quick-drying adhesive. The eggs are then transferred to the host by a mosquito bite. The host’s body heat induces egg hatching, and the larvae burrow into follicular openings or skin perforations. This leads to the development of a small erythematous papule, which can further lead to a furuncle-like nodule with a central pore that allows the organism to respirate. When ready to pupate, the larvae work their way to the skin surface and drop to the soil, where they can further develop. After pupation, the fly hatches and develops into an adult, and the cycle repeats.

Common infectious and inflammatory lesions are in the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis includes bacterial abscess, exaggerated arthropod reaction, and ruptured epidermal cyst. With our patient, the travel history and unique exam findings led to the suspicion of myiasis.

Bacterial abscess is likely to have more notable purulence with response to appropriate oral antibiotics and no bubbling phenomenon on exam. It is also unlikely to be present for 1 month without progressive worsening.

Continue to: Exaggerated arthropod reaction

Exaggerated arthropod reaction usually manifests as a smooth, red, papular lesion without bubble formation from a central pore.

Ruptured epidermal cyst would be considered if there was a known preexisting cyst that recently changed. No bubble formation would be observed from the central pore.

Extraction is the treatment of choice

Treatment of furuncular myiasis involves removing the larvae or forcing them out of the lesion. Wounds can be covered with a substance, such as petrolatum, nail polish, beeswax, paraffin, or mineral oil, to block respiration.³ Occlusion may be needed for 24 hours to create adequate localized hypoxia to force the larvae to migrate from the wound and allow for easier manual extraction. Surgical removal of the larvae is also effective. A cruciate incision can be made adjacent to the central pore to avoid damaging the organisms.³ A topical, broad-based antiparasitic, such as a 10% ivermectin solution, has also been successfully used to treat furuncular myiasis. This approach works by either inducing larval migration outward or simply killing the larvae.³

Our patient recovered well after we performed a punch biopsy to make a larger wound opening and remove the intact larvae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Richard Pollack, PhD, at IdentifyUS, LLC, for providing the botfly larvae photo.

There’s a strong likelihood that the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may moderately lower rates of hospitalization caused by COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients, a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.

The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.

“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”

According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.

A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”

For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.

Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.

All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.

“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I², 0.2%).”

Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.

Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”

Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”

The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”

In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”

He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”

Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”

He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”

Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”

No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s a strong likelihood that the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may moderately lower rates of hospitalization caused by COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients, a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.

The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.

“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”

According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.

A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”

For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.

Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.

All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.

“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I², 0.2%).”

Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.

Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”

Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”

The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”

In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”

He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”

Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”

He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”

Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”

No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s a strong likelihood that the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may moderately lower rates of hospitalization caused by COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients, a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.

The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.

“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”

According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.

A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”

For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.

Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.

All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.

“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I², 0.2%).”

Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.

Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”

Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”

The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”

In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”

He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”

Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”

He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”

Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”

No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Though overall COVID-19 case counts continue to drop nationally, that’s not the story in every U.S. state.

About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.

Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.

National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.

“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.

“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.

If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.

The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.

“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.

“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

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

Though overall COVID-19 case counts continue to drop nationally, that’s not the story in every U.S. state.

About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.

Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.

National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.

“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.

“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.

If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.

The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.

“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.

“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

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

Though overall COVID-19 case counts continue to drop nationally, that’s not the story in every U.S. state.

About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.

Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.

National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.

“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.

“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.

If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.

The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.

“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.

“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

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

Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.

The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
 

Long-term evolution unknown

Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.

Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.

Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
 

Persistent headache common

In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.

“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.

“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”

Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
 

Secondary tension headaches

On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”

He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
 

Primary headache exacerbation

Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.

“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.

This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.

As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”

Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.

“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
 

Providing prognosis and treatment

Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).

When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”

In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.

In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.

“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.

Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.

The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
 

Long-term evolution unknown

Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.

Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.

Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
 

Persistent headache common

In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.

“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.

“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”

Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
 

Secondary tension headaches

On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”

He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
 

Primary headache exacerbation

Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.

“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.

This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.

As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”

Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.

“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
 

Providing prognosis and treatment

Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).

When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”

In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.

In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.

“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.

Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.

The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
 

Long-term evolution unknown

Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.

Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.

Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
 

Persistent headache common

In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.

“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.

“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”

Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
 

Secondary tension headaches

On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”

He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
 

Primary headache exacerbation

Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.

“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.

This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.

As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”

Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.

“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
 

Providing prognosis and treatment

Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).

When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”

In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.

In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.

“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.

Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weight-loss program can lead to type 2 diabetes remission, even in individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI), via loss of body fat, particularly in the liver and pancreas, shows a U.K. study.

The ReTUNE trial, funded by Diabetes UK, involved 20 people with type 2 diabetes of less than 6 year’s duration and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or lower.

Joel Austell/MDedge News

After 1 year, participants had lost 9% of their body weight.

Their body fat decreased significantly, to the same level as controls without type 2 diabetes, and they experienced decreases in liver fat, total triglycerides, and pancreatic fat.

The research, presented at the 2022 Diabetes UK Professional Conference, also showed this was accompanied by increases in insulin secretion and reductions in hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose levels.

Lead author Roy Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and metabolism, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said the findings indicate that the “etiology and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is the same whether BMI is normal or raised.”

This information should make a profound difference in what doctors advise their patients, Dr. Taylor added.

“One of the dramatic things about dealing with people in this group,” he said, “is they feel very resentful that healthcare professionals tell them not to lose weight.”

Based on the current results, Dr. Taylor believes this is “inappropriate advice, and it’s that personal advice that I think that this study points a way towards.”
 

Weight loss ‘first line of treatment’

These findings support the theory of a personal fat threshold, above which “type 2 diabetes occurs,” said Dr. Taylor. “Weight loss is the first-line treatment for all with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of BMI.”

Dr. Taylor already showed in the DiRECT trial that a calorie-restricted liquid diet followed by gradual food reintroduction and a weight-loss maintenance program can achieve and sustain type 2 diabetes remission at 2 years in people who are overweight or obese.

As reported this news organization, 36% of 300 patients enrolled in the trial attained diabetes remission and maintained it out to 24 months, compared with negligible changes in the control group.

Inspired by the results of DiRECT and the DROPLET study, the National Health Service has been rolling out a low calorie–diet treatment program for people who are overweight and living with diabetes.

Asked during the postpresentation discussion whether the current results could have implications for the NHS program, Dr. Taylor said it remains, in effect, a study and will not change things for now.

Chris Askew, chief executive of Diabetes UK, said in a release: “This game-changing study ... advances our understanding of why type 2 diabetes develops and what can be done to treat it.

“Our ambition is for as many people as possible to have the chance to put their type 2 diabetes into remission and live well for longer.”

Mr. Askew continued: “The findings of ReTUNE potentially take us a significant step closer to achieving this goal by showing that remission isn’t only possible for people of certain body weights.”
 

Weight and body fat decrease led to remission

For ReTUNE, the team recruited 20 individuals with type 2 diabetes of less than 6 year’s duration who had a BMI of 21-27 and compared them with 20 matched controls, with a follow-up of 52 weeks. 

Patients were an average age of 59.0 years, 13 were women, mean BMI was 24.8, and average duration of diabetes was 2.8 years. Mean A1c was 54 mmol/mol.

Fourteen of the patients were taking metformin at enrollment and two were being treated with gliclazide. These medications were stopped when the individuals with type 2 diabetes entered a weight-loss program incremented in 5% steps, followed by 6 weeks of weight stability.

Overall, weight decreased by an average of 9%, while body fat decreased from 32% at baseline to 28% at 1 year (P < .001), the same percentage as that seen in the controls.

Liver fats also decreased significantly from baseline (P < .001) down to approximately the same level as controls at 1 year, a pattern also seen with very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

Pancreatic fat decreased steadily and significantly over the course of the 52-week follow-up (P < .05), although remained above the level seen in controls.

Insulin secretion increased significantly over the course of the study (P = .005) to finish just over the threshold for the lower range of normal at 52 weeks.

This, Dr. Taylor showed, was enough for the 14 patients who achieved type 2 diabetes remission to see their A1c levels fall significantly during follow-up (P < .001), alongside fasting plasma glucose levels (P < .001).

ReTUNE is funded by Diabetes UK. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weight-loss program can lead to type 2 diabetes remission, even in individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI), via loss of body fat, particularly in the liver and pancreas, shows a U.K. study.

The ReTUNE trial, funded by Diabetes UK, involved 20 people with type 2 diabetes of less than 6 year’s duration and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or lower.

Joel Austell/MDedge News

After 1 year, participants had lost 9% of their body weight.

Their body fat decreased significantly, to the same level as controls without type 2 diabetes, and they experienced decreases in liver fat, total triglycerides, and pancreatic fat.

The research, presented at the 2022 Diabetes UK Professional Conference, also showed this was accompanied by increases in insulin secretion and reductions in hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose levels.

Lead author Roy Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and metabolism, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said the findings indicate that the “etiology and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is the same whether BMI is normal or raised.”

This information should make a profound difference in what doctors advise their patients, Dr. Taylor added.

“One of the dramatic things about dealing with people in this group,” he said, “is they feel very resentful that healthcare professionals tell them not to lose weight.”

Based on the current results, Dr. Taylor believes this is “inappropriate advice, and it’s that personal advice that I think that this study points a way towards.”
 

Weight loss ‘first line of treatment’

These findings support the theory of a personal fat threshold, above which “type 2 diabetes occurs,” said Dr. Taylor. “Weight loss is the first-line treatment for all with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of BMI.”

Dr. Taylor already showed in the DiRECT trial that a calorie-restricted liquid diet followed by gradual food reintroduction and a weight-loss maintenance program can achieve and sustain type 2 diabetes remission at 2 years in people who are overweight or obese.

As reported this news organization, 36% of 300 patients enrolled in the trial attained diabetes remission and maintained it out to 24 months, compared with negligible changes in the control group.

Inspired by the results of DiRECT and the DROPLET study, the National Health Service has been rolling out a low calorie–diet treatment program for people who are overweight and living with diabetes.

Asked during the postpresentation discussion whether the current results could have implications for the NHS program, Dr. Taylor said it remains, in effect, a study and will not change things for now.

Chris Askew, chief executive of Diabetes UK, said in a release: “This game-changing study ... advances our understanding of why type 2 diabetes develops and what can be done to treat it.

“Our ambition is for as many people as possible to have the chance to put their type 2 diabetes into remission and live well for longer.”

Mr. Askew continued: “The findings of ReTUNE potentially take us a significant step closer to achieving this goal by showing that remission isn’t only possible for people of certain body weights.”
 

Weight and body fat decrease led to remission

For ReTUNE, the team recruited 20 individuals with type 2 diabetes of less than 6 year’s duration who had a BMI of 21-27 and compared them with 20 matched controls, with a follow-up of 52 weeks. 

Patients were an average age of 59.0 years, 13 were women, mean BMI was 24.8, and average duration of diabetes was 2.8 years. Mean A1c was 54 mmol/mol.

Fourteen of the patients were taking metformin at enrollment and two were being treated with gliclazide. These medications were stopped when the individuals with type 2 diabetes entered a weight-loss program incremented in 5% steps, followed by 6 weeks of weight stability.

Overall, weight decreased by an average of 9%, while body fat decreased from 32% at baseline to 28% at 1 year (P < .001), the same percentage as that seen in the controls.

Liver fats also decreased significantly from baseline (P < .001) down to approximately the same level as controls at 1 year, a pattern also seen with very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

Pancreatic fat decreased steadily and significantly over the course of the 52-week follow-up (P < .05), although remained above the level seen in controls.

Insulin secretion increased significantly over the course of the study (P = .005) to finish just over the threshold for the lower range of normal at 52 weeks.

This, Dr. Taylor showed, was enough for the 14 patients who achieved type 2 diabetes remission to see their A1c levels fall significantly during follow-up (P < .001), alongside fasting plasma glucose levels (P < .001).

ReTUNE is funded by Diabetes UK. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weight-loss program can lead to type 2 diabetes remission, even in individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI), via loss of body fat, particularly in the liver and pancreas, shows a U.K. study.

The ReTUNE trial, funded by Diabetes UK, involved 20 people with type 2 diabetes of less than 6 year’s duration and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or lower.

Joel Austell/MDedge News

After 1 year, participants had lost 9% of their body weight.

Their body fat decreased significantly, to the same level as controls without type 2 diabetes, and they experienced decreases in liver fat, total triglycerides, and pancreatic fat.

The research, presented at the 2022 Diabetes UK Professional Conference, also showed this was accompanied by increases in insulin secretion and reductions in hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose levels.

Lead author Roy Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and metabolism, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said the findings indicate that the “etiology and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is the same whether BMI is normal or raised.”

This information should make a profound difference in what doctors advise their patients, Dr. Taylor added.

“One of the dramatic things about dealing with people in this group,” he said, “is they feel very resentful that healthcare professionals tell them not to lose weight.”

Based on the current results, Dr. Taylor believes this is “inappropriate advice, and it’s that personal advice that I think that this study points a way towards.”
 

Weight loss ‘first line of treatment’

These findings support the theory of a personal fat threshold, above which “type 2 diabetes occurs,” said Dr. Taylor. “Weight loss is the first-line treatment for all with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of BMI.”

Dr. Taylor already showed in the DiRECT trial that a calorie-restricted liquid diet followed by gradual food reintroduction and a weight-loss maintenance program can achieve and sustain type 2 diabetes remission at 2 years in people who are overweight or obese.

As reported this news organization, 36% of 300 patients enrolled in the trial attained diabetes remission and maintained it out to 24 months, compared with negligible changes in the control group.

Inspired by the results of DiRECT and the DROPLET study, the National Health Service has been rolling out a low calorie–diet treatment program for people who are overweight and living with diabetes.

Asked during the postpresentation discussion whether the current results could have implications for the NHS program, Dr. Taylor said it remains, in effect, a study and will not change things for now.

Chris Askew, chief executive of Diabetes UK, said in a release: “This game-changing study ... advances our understanding of why type 2 diabetes develops and what can be done to treat it.

“Our ambition is for as many people as possible to have the chance to put their type 2 diabetes into remission and live well for longer.”

Mr. Askew continued: “The findings of ReTUNE potentially take us a significant step closer to achieving this goal by showing that remission isn’t only possible for people of certain body weights.”
 

Weight and body fat decrease led to remission

For ReTUNE, the team recruited 20 individuals with type 2 diabetes of less than 6 year’s duration who had a BMI of 21-27 and compared them with 20 matched controls, with a follow-up of 52 weeks. 

Patients were an average age of 59.0 years, 13 were women, mean BMI was 24.8, and average duration of diabetes was 2.8 years. Mean A1c was 54 mmol/mol.

Fourteen of the patients were taking metformin at enrollment and two were being treated with gliclazide. These medications were stopped when the individuals with type 2 diabetes entered a weight-loss program incremented in 5% steps, followed by 6 weeks of weight stability.

Overall, weight decreased by an average of 9%, while body fat decreased from 32% at baseline to 28% at 1 year (P < .001), the same percentage as that seen in the controls.

Liver fats also decreased significantly from baseline (P < .001) down to approximately the same level as controls at 1 year, a pattern also seen with very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

Pancreatic fat decreased steadily and significantly over the course of the 52-week follow-up (P < .05), although remained above the level seen in controls.

Insulin secretion increased significantly over the course of the study (P = .005) to finish just over the threshold for the lower range of normal at 52 weeks.

This, Dr. Taylor showed, was enough for the 14 patients who achieved type 2 diabetes remission to see their A1c levels fall significantly during follow-up (P < .001), alongside fasting plasma glucose levels (P < .001).

ReTUNE is funded by Diabetes UK. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.

Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.

The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.

The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.

That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.

Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”

Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.

So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.

To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.

If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.

Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.

“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”

Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.

“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”

The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”

The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.

“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.

The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.

Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.

Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.

The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.

The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.

That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.

Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”

Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.

So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.

To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.

If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.

Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.

“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”

Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.

“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”

The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”

The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.

“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.

The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.

Premature births from cesarean (C-section) and induced deliveries dropped abruptly by 6.5% from the projected number in the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic and stayed at the lower rate consistently throughout the year, researchers have found.

Results of the study, led by Daniel Dench, PhD, assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics in Atlanta, were published online in Pediatrics.

The authors say their findings help answer the question of whether numbers of preterm (less than 37 weeks gestation) C-sections and induced deliveries would change if women didn’t see their physicians during pregnancy as often, especially in person, and raise the question of whether some birth interventions by physicians may not be necessary. The pandemic gave researchers a natural, ethical way to study the question.

The researchers found that in March 2020 – the start of business closures and stay-at-home orders around the country – preterm births from C-sections or induced deliveries immediately fell from the forecast number for the month by 0.4 percentage points. For the rest of 2020, the number remained on average 0.35 percentage points below the numbers predicted.

That means 350 fewer preterm C-sections and induced deliveries per 100,000 live births, or 10,000 fewer overall, the authors said.

Dr. Dench told this publication the numbers for those births had been steady from January 2010 to February 2020, but the pattern “diverges from this trend very clearly beginning exactly in March 2020 and does not return to trend by December 2020.”

Meanwhile, during the study period, the number of full-term cesarean and induced deliveries stayed steady and started to increase slightly in 2020. Researchers also adjusted for seasonality as, for example, preterm births are higher on average in February than in March.

So far, Dr. Dench said in a press release, it’s not clear whether the lower numbers mean physicians didn’t deliver babies that ended up surviving in the womb anyway or if they missed some that would die in the womb without intervention.

To better understand those implications, Dr. Dench says he is turning to fetal death records for March-December 2020 and he said he expects to have those results analyzed by the end of the year.

If there was no change in fetal deaths at the same time as the drop in preterm births, Dr. Dench said, that could point to physician interventions that may not have been necessary.

Mya R. Zapata, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist with UCLA Health, who was not involved with the study, told this publication that checking the fetal deaths is a good start and an objective outcome in answering the question, but she points out there are other outcomes that will take a deeper analysis, such as whether there are differences later in developmental outcomes after fewer physician visits.

“It’s always a good question for health care,” she said, “are we doing more than we need to?”

Dr. Zapata is the obstetrics service chief for UCLA’s labor and delivery unit and was an integral part of decision-making as to what services were essential and for which patients. She said the fewer visits and fewer ultrasounds the researchers describe fit with what ob.gyns. at UCLA experienced as the pandemic hit.

“We really tried to hone in on people who were at highest risk for an adverse outcome,” she said. “I still have the question of whether there were things we missed in low-risk people. It will take time to get the entire answer. But it does make us reflect that perhaps less intervention could be better for patients and easier. It’s our job in medicine to keep asking the question of what is essential and safe and not just continue with current practice because that’s what we’ve always done.”

The amount of data gave the researchers an unusual view. They studied 38,891,271 singleton births in the United States from 2010 to 2020 with data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“If you look at 1,000 births in a single hospital, or even at 30,000 births across a hospital system, you wouldn’t be able to see the drop as clearly,” Dr. Dench said. “The drop we detected is a huge change, but you might miss it in a small sample.”

The researchers acknowledge a limitation of the study is that half of all preterm C-sections and induced deliveries happen because of a ruptured membrane, a spontaneous cause. Those instances can’t be distinguished from the ones caused by doctors’ interventions in this study.

“Still, these findings are significant because the causes for preterm births are not always known,” the authors wrote in the press release.

The study authors and Dr. Zapata reported no relevant financial relationships.

A biopsy was performed and the pathology report showed ectatic, thin-walled vessels consistent with telangiectasias. There were no other inflammatory, infectious, or malignant changes.

Telangiectasias are caused by permanent dilatation of subpapillary plexus end vessels. Unlike petechiae and angiomata, telangiectasias blanch with pressure. They usually manifest as small, bright red, nonpulsatile vascular lesions with a fine, netlike pattern on the surface of the skin. Telangiectasis can affect many organs (eg, intestines, bladder, brain, eyes) and may occur in patients with certain genetic disorders and environmental exposures (eg, radiation).¹

Palmar telangiectasias are specifically associated with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, dermatomyositis, Grave disease, CREST syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, and smoking.² Sun exposure and smoking are the main risk factors for the development of telangiectasias.¹

This patient had no history of autoimmune disease or hyperthyroidism, and no one in her family had telangiectasis. Thus, the likely cause of her lesions was smoking. While the pathophysiology is not fully understood, it is likely related to the vasoconstrictive quality of nicotine, causing ischemia in the dermis. This chronic, low-grade ischemia may trigger the compensatory development of telangiectasias.²

This patient was informed that her telangiectasias were most likely caused by her smoking and that the lesions themselves did not require treatment. She was encouraged to continue her smoking cessation efforts with her primary care provider.

‌

Photos courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD. Text courtesy of Mia MJ Coleman, BA, BS, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

A biopsy was performed and the pathology report showed ectatic, thin-walled vessels consistent with telangiectasias. There were no other inflammatory, infectious, or malignant changes.

Telangiectasias are caused by permanent dilatation of subpapillary plexus end vessels. Unlike petechiae and angiomata, telangiectasias blanch with pressure. They usually manifest as small, bright red, nonpulsatile vascular lesions with a fine, netlike pattern on the surface of the skin. Telangiectasis can affect many organs (eg, intestines, bladder, brain, eyes) and may occur in patients with certain genetic disorders and environmental exposures (eg, radiation).¹

Palmar telangiectasias are specifically associated with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, dermatomyositis, Grave disease, CREST syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, and smoking.² Sun exposure and smoking are the main risk factors for the development of telangiectasias.¹

This patient had no history of autoimmune disease or hyperthyroidism, and no one in her family had telangiectasis. Thus, the likely cause of her lesions was smoking. While the pathophysiology is not fully understood, it is likely related to the vasoconstrictive quality of nicotine, causing ischemia in the dermis. This chronic, low-grade ischemia may trigger the compensatory development of telangiectasias.²

This patient was informed that her telangiectasias were most likely caused by her smoking and that the lesions themselves did not require treatment. She was encouraged to continue her smoking cessation efforts with her primary care provider.

‌

Photos courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD. Text courtesy of Mia MJ Coleman, BA, BS, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

A biopsy was performed and the pathology report showed ectatic, thin-walled vessels consistent with telangiectasias. There were no other inflammatory, infectious, or malignant changes.

Telangiectasias are caused by permanent dilatation of subpapillary plexus end vessels. Unlike petechiae and angiomata, telangiectasias blanch with pressure. They usually manifest as small, bright red, nonpulsatile vascular lesions with a fine, netlike pattern on the surface of the skin. Telangiectasis can affect many organs (eg, intestines, bladder, brain, eyes) and may occur in patients with certain genetic disorders and environmental exposures (eg, radiation).¹

Palmar telangiectasias are specifically associated with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, dermatomyositis, Grave disease, CREST syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, and smoking.² Sun exposure and smoking are the main risk factors for the development of telangiectasias.¹

This patient had no history of autoimmune disease or hyperthyroidism, and no one in her family had telangiectasis. Thus, the likely cause of her lesions was smoking. While the pathophysiology is not fully understood, it is likely related to the vasoconstrictive quality of nicotine, causing ischemia in the dermis. This chronic, low-grade ischemia may trigger the compensatory development of telangiectasias.²

This patient was informed that her telangiectasias were most likely caused by her smoking and that the lesions themselves did not require treatment. She was encouraged to continue her smoking cessation efforts with her primary care provider.

‌

Photos courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD. Text courtesy of Mia MJ Coleman, BA, BS, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Emma Moore felt cornered. At a community health clinic in Portland, Ore., the 29-year-old nurse practitioner said she felt overwhelmed and undertrained. Coronavirus patients flooded the clinic for 2 years, and Ms. Moore struggled to keep up.

Then the stakes became clear. On March 25, about 2,400 miles away in a Tennessee courtroom, former nurse RaDonda Vaught was convicted of two felonies and facing 8 years in prison for a fatal medication mistake.

Like many nurses, Ms. Moore wondered if that could be her. She’d made medication errors before, although none so grievous. But what about the next one? In the pressure cooker of pandemic-era health care, another mistake felt inevitable.

Four days after Ms. Vaught’s verdict, Ms. Moore quit. She said Ms. Vaught’s verdict contributed to her decision.

“It’s not worth the possibility or the likelihood that this will happen,” Ms. Moore said, “if I’m in a situation where I’m set up to fail.”

In the wake of Ms. Vaught’s trial – an extremely rare case of a health care worker being criminally prosecuted for a medical error – nurses and nursing organizations have condemned the verdict through tens of thousands of social media posts, shares, comments, and videos. They warn that the fallout will ripple through their profession, demoralizing and depleting the ranks of nurses already stretched thin by the pandemic. Ultimately, they say, it will worsen health care for all.

Statements from the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, and the National Medical Association said Ms. Vaught’s conviction set a “dangerous precedent.” Linda H. Aiken, PhD, RN, a nursing and sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that although Ms. Vaught’s case is an “outlier,” it will make nurses less forthcoming about mistakes.

“One thing that everybody agrees on is it’s going to have a dampening effect on the reporting of errors or near misses, which then has a detrimental effect on safety,” Dr. Aiken said. “The only way you can really learn about errors in these complicated systems is to have people say, ‘Oh, I almost gave the wrong drug because …’

“Well, nobody is going to say that now.”

Fear and outrage about Ms. Vaught’s case have swirled among nurses on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. On TikTok, a video platform increasingly popular among medical professionals, videos with the “#RaDondaVaught” hashtag totaled more than 47 million views.

Ms. Vaught’s supporters catapulted a plea for her clemency to the top of Change.org, a petition website. And thousands also joined a Facebook group planning to gather in protest outside Ms. Vaught’s sentencing hearing in May.

Ashley Bartholomew, BSN, RN, a 36-year-old Tampa nurse who followed the trial through YouTube and Twitter, echoed the fear of many others. Nurses have long felt forced into “impossible situations” by mounting responsibilities and staffing shortages, she said, particularly in hospitals that operate with lean staffing models.

“The big response we are seeing is because all of us are acutely aware of how bad the pandemic has exacerbated the existing problems,” Ms. Bartholomew said. And “setting a precedent for criminally charging [for] an error is only going to make this exponentially worse.”

Ms. Vaught, who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted in the death of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died from a drug mix-up in 2017. Ms. Murphey was prescribed a dose of a sedative, Versed, but Ms. Vaught accidentally withdrew a powerful paralyzer, vecuronium, from an automated medication-dispensing cabinet and administered it to the patient.

Prosecutors argued that Ms. Vaught overlooked many obvious signs she’d withdrawn the wrong drug and did not monitor Ms. Murphey after she was given a deadly dose. Ms. Vaught owned up to the error but said it was an honest mistake, not a crime.

Some of Ms. Vaught’s peers support the conviction.

Scott G. Shelp, BSN, RN, a California nurse with a small YouTube channel, posted a 26-minute self-described “unpopular opinion” that Ms. Vaught deserves to serve prison time. “We need to stick up for each other,” he said, “but we cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr. Shelp said he would never make the same error as Ms. Vaught and “neither would any competent nurse.” Regarding concerns that the conviction would discourage nurses from disclosing errors, Mr. Shelp said “dishonest” nurses “should be weeded out” of the profession anyway.

“In any other circumstance, I can’t believe anyone – including nurses – would accept ‘I didn’t mean to’ as a serious defense,” Mr. Shelp said. “Punishment for a harmful act someone actually did is justice.”

Ms. Vaught was acquitted of reckless homicide but convicted of a lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, and gross neglect of an impaired adult. As outrage spread across social media, the Nashville district attorney’s office defended the conviction, saying in a statement it was “not an indictment against the nursing profession or the medical community.”

“This case is, and always has been, about the one single individual who made 17 egregious actions, and inactions, that killed an elderly woman,” said the office’s spokesperson, Steve Hayslip. “The jury found that Vaught’s actions were so far below the protocols and standard level of care, that the jury (which included a longtime nurse and another health care professional) returned a guilty verdict in less than four hours.”

The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught despite the Change.org petition, which had amassed about 187,000 signatures as of April 4.

Casey Black, press secretary for Gov. Lee, said that outside of death penalty cases the governor relies on the Board of Parole to recommend defendants for clemency, which happens only after sentencing and a board investigation.

But the controversy around Ms. Vaught’s case is far from over. As of April 4, more than 8,200 people had joined a Facebook group planning a march in protest outside the courthouse during her sentencing May 13.

Among the event’s planners is Tina Visant, the host of “Good Nurse Bad Nurse,” a podcast that followed Ms. Vaught’s case and opposed her prosecution.

“I don’t know how Nashville is going to handle it,” Ms. Visant said of the protest during a recent episode about Ms. Vaught’s trial. “There are a lot of people coming from all over.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Emma Moore felt cornered. At a community health clinic in Portland, Ore., the 29-year-old nurse practitioner said she felt overwhelmed and undertrained. Coronavirus patients flooded the clinic for 2 years, and Ms. Moore struggled to keep up.

Then the stakes became clear. On March 25, about 2,400 miles away in a Tennessee courtroom, former nurse RaDonda Vaught was convicted of two felonies and facing 8 years in prison for a fatal medication mistake.

Like many nurses, Ms. Moore wondered if that could be her. She’d made medication errors before, although none so grievous. But what about the next one? In the pressure cooker of pandemic-era health care, another mistake felt inevitable.

Four days after Ms. Vaught’s verdict, Ms. Moore quit. She said Ms. Vaught’s verdict contributed to her decision.

“It’s not worth the possibility or the likelihood that this will happen,” Ms. Moore said, “if I’m in a situation where I’m set up to fail.”

In the wake of Ms. Vaught’s trial – an extremely rare case of a health care worker being criminally prosecuted for a medical error – nurses and nursing organizations have condemned the verdict through tens of thousands of social media posts, shares, comments, and videos. They warn that the fallout will ripple through their profession, demoralizing and depleting the ranks of nurses already stretched thin by the pandemic. Ultimately, they say, it will worsen health care for all.

Statements from the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, and the National Medical Association said Ms. Vaught’s conviction set a “dangerous precedent.” Linda H. Aiken, PhD, RN, a nursing and sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that although Ms. Vaught’s case is an “outlier,” it will make nurses less forthcoming about mistakes.

“One thing that everybody agrees on is it’s going to have a dampening effect on the reporting of errors or near misses, which then has a detrimental effect on safety,” Dr. Aiken said. “The only way you can really learn about errors in these complicated systems is to have people say, ‘Oh, I almost gave the wrong drug because …’

“Well, nobody is going to say that now.”

Fear and outrage about Ms. Vaught’s case have swirled among nurses on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. On TikTok, a video platform increasingly popular among medical professionals, videos with the “#RaDondaVaught” hashtag totaled more than 47 million views.

Ms. Vaught’s supporters catapulted a plea for her clemency to the top of Change.org, a petition website. And thousands also joined a Facebook group planning to gather in protest outside Ms. Vaught’s sentencing hearing in May.

Ashley Bartholomew, BSN, RN, a 36-year-old Tampa nurse who followed the trial through YouTube and Twitter, echoed the fear of many others. Nurses have long felt forced into “impossible situations” by mounting responsibilities and staffing shortages, she said, particularly in hospitals that operate with lean staffing models.

“The big response we are seeing is because all of us are acutely aware of how bad the pandemic has exacerbated the existing problems,” Ms. Bartholomew said. And “setting a precedent for criminally charging [for] an error is only going to make this exponentially worse.”

Ms. Vaught, who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted in the death of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died from a drug mix-up in 2017. Ms. Murphey was prescribed a dose of a sedative, Versed, but Ms. Vaught accidentally withdrew a powerful paralyzer, vecuronium, from an automated medication-dispensing cabinet and administered it to the patient.

Prosecutors argued that Ms. Vaught overlooked many obvious signs she’d withdrawn the wrong drug and did not monitor Ms. Murphey after she was given a deadly dose. Ms. Vaught owned up to the error but said it was an honest mistake, not a crime.

Some of Ms. Vaught’s peers support the conviction.

Scott G. Shelp, BSN, RN, a California nurse with a small YouTube channel, posted a 26-minute self-described “unpopular opinion” that Ms. Vaught deserves to serve prison time. “We need to stick up for each other,” he said, “but we cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr. Shelp said he would never make the same error as Ms. Vaught and “neither would any competent nurse.” Regarding concerns that the conviction would discourage nurses from disclosing errors, Mr. Shelp said “dishonest” nurses “should be weeded out” of the profession anyway.

“In any other circumstance, I can’t believe anyone – including nurses – would accept ‘I didn’t mean to’ as a serious defense,” Mr. Shelp said. “Punishment for a harmful act someone actually did is justice.”

Ms. Vaught was acquitted of reckless homicide but convicted of a lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, and gross neglect of an impaired adult. As outrage spread across social media, the Nashville district attorney’s office defended the conviction, saying in a statement it was “not an indictment against the nursing profession or the medical community.”

“This case is, and always has been, about the one single individual who made 17 egregious actions, and inactions, that killed an elderly woman,” said the office’s spokesperson, Steve Hayslip. “The jury found that Vaught’s actions were so far below the protocols and standard level of care, that the jury (which included a longtime nurse and another health care professional) returned a guilty verdict in less than four hours.”

The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught despite the Change.org petition, which had amassed about 187,000 signatures as of April 4.

Casey Black, press secretary for Gov. Lee, said that outside of death penalty cases the governor relies on the Board of Parole to recommend defendants for clemency, which happens only after sentencing and a board investigation.

But the controversy around Ms. Vaught’s case is far from over. As of April 4, more than 8,200 people had joined a Facebook group planning a march in protest outside the courthouse during her sentencing May 13.

Among the event’s planners is Tina Visant, the host of “Good Nurse Bad Nurse,” a podcast that followed Ms. Vaught’s case and opposed her prosecution.

“I don’t know how Nashville is going to handle it,” Ms. Visant said of the protest during a recent episode about Ms. Vaught’s trial. “There are a lot of people coming from all over.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Emma Moore felt cornered. At a community health clinic in Portland, Ore., the 29-year-old nurse practitioner said she felt overwhelmed and undertrained. Coronavirus patients flooded the clinic for 2 years, and Ms. Moore struggled to keep up.

Then the stakes became clear. On March 25, about 2,400 miles away in a Tennessee courtroom, former nurse RaDonda Vaught was convicted of two felonies and facing 8 years in prison for a fatal medication mistake.

Like many nurses, Ms. Moore wondered if that could be her. She’d made medication errors before, although none so grievous. But what about the next one? In the pressure cooker of pandemic-era health care, another mistake felt inevitable.

Four days after Ms. Vaught’s verdict, Ms. Moore quit. She said Ms. Vaught’s verdict contributed to her decision.

“It’s not worth the possibility or the likelihood that this will happen,” Ms. Moore said, “if I’m in a situation where I’m set up to fail.”

In the wake of Ms. Vaught’s trial – an extremely rare case of a health care worker being criminally prosecuted for a medical error – nurses and nursing organizations have condemned the verdict through tens of thousands of social media posts, shares, comments, and videos. They warn that the fallout will ripple through their profession, demoralizing and depleting the ranks of nurses already stretched thin by the pandemic. Ultimately, they say, it will worsen health care for all.

Statements from the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, and the National Medical Association said Ms. Vaught’s conviction set a “dangerous precedent.” Linda H. Aiken, PhD, RN, a nursing and sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that although Ms. Vaught’s case is an “outlier,” it will make nurses less forthcoming about mistakes.

“One thing that everybody agrees on is it’s going to have a dampening effect on the reporting of errors or near misses, which then has a detrimental effect on safety,” Dr. Aiken said. “The only way you can really learn about errors in these complicated systems is to have people say, ‘Oh, I almost gave the wrong drug because …’

“Well, nobody is going to say that now.”

Fear and outrage about Ms. Vaught’s case have swirled among nurses on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. On TikTok, a video platform increasingly popular among medical professionals, videos with the “#RaDondaVaught” hashtag totaled more than 47 million views.

Ms. Vaught’s supporters catapulted a plea for her clemency to the top of Change.org, a petition website. And thousands also joined a Facebook group planning to gather in protest outside Ms. Vaught’s sentencing hearing in May.

Ashley Bartholomew, BSN, RN, a 36-year-old Tampa nurse who followed the trial through YouTube and Twitter, echoed the fear of many others. Nurses have long felt forced into “impossible situations” by mounting responsibilities and staffing shortages, she said, particularly in hospitals that operate with lean staffing models.

“The big response we are seeing is because all of us are acutely aware of how bad the pandemic has exacerbated the existing problems,” Ms. Bartholomew said. And “setting a precedent for criminally charging [for] an error is only going to make this exponentially worse.”

Ms. Vaught, who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted in the death of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died from a drug mix-up in 2017. Ms. Murphey was prescribed a dose of a sedative, Versed, but Ms. Vaught accidentally withdrew a powerful paralyzer, vecuronium, from an automated medication-dispensing cabinet and administered it to the patient.

Prosecutors argued that Ms. Vaught overlooked many obvious signs she’d withdrawn the wrong drug and did not monitor Ms. Murphey after she was given a deadly dose. Ms. Vaught owned up to the error but said it was an honest mistake, not a crime.

Some of Ms. Vaught’s peers support the conviction.

Scott G. Shelp, BSN, RN, a California nurse with a small YouTube channel, posted a 26-minute self-described “unpopular opinion” that Ms. Vaught deserves to serve prison time. “We need to stick up for each other,” he said, “but we cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr. Shelp said he would never make the same error as Ms. Vaught and “neither would any competent nurse.” Regarding concerns that the conviction would discourage nurses from disclosing errors, Mr. Shelp said “dishonest” nurses “should be weeded out” of the profession anyway.

“In any other circumstance, I can’t believe anyone – including nurses – would accept ‘I didn’t mean to’ as a serious defense,” Mr. Shelp said. “Punishment for a harmful act someone actually did is justice.”

Ms. Vaught was acquitted of reckless homicide but convicted of a lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, and gross neglect of an impaired adult. As outrage spread across social media, the Nashville district attorney’s office defended the conviction, saying in a statement it was “not an indictment against the nursing profession or the medical community.”

“This case is, and always has been, about the one single individual who made 17 egregious actions, and inactions, that killed an elderly woman,” said the office’s spokesperson, Steve Hayslip. “The jury found that Vaught’s actions were so far below the protocols and standard level of care, that the jury (which included a longtime nurse and another health care professional) returned a guilty verdict in less than four hours.”

The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught despite the Change.org petition, which had amassed about 187,000 signatures as of April 4.

Casey Black, press secretary for Gov. Lee, said that outside of death penalty cases the governor relies on the Board of Parole to recommend defendants for clemency, which happens only after sentencing and a board investigation.

But the controversy around Ms. Vaught’s case is far from over. As of April 4, more than 8,200 people had joined a Facebook group planning a march in protest outside the courthouse during her sentencing May 13.

Among the event’s planners is Tina Visant, the host of “Good Nurse Bad Nurse,” a podcast that followed Ms. Vaught’s case and opposed her prosecution.

“I don’t know how Nashville is going to handle it,” Ms. Visant said of the protest during a recent episode about Ms. Vaught’s trial. “There are a lot of people coming from all over.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The Biden administration has announced a massive federal effort to better understand, diagnose, and treat the crippling effects of long COVID.

The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.

“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”

The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.

The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.

The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.

Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.

New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.

“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.

Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.

Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.

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

The Biden administration has announced a massive federal effort to better understand, diagnose, and treat the crippling effects of long COVID.

The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.

“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”

The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.

The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.

The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.

Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.

New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.

“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.

Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.

Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.

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

The Biden administration has announced a massive federal effort to better understand, diagnose, and treat the crippling effects of long COVID.

The National Research Action Plan on Long COVID will gather experts from various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand existing long-COVID clinics and broaden research on symptoms of the virus that persist long after infection.

“We’ll collaborate with academic, industry, state and local partners to better understand long COVID,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at a White House briefing April 5. “We need to work as aggressively as we can to make sure no American is left behind.”

The plan will build on the RECOVER Initiative, a $1.15 billion effort announced last year that will study long COVID.

The COVID-19 Response Team also announced that the United States will donate tens of millions of pediatric coronavirus vaccines to other countries. More than 20 countries have asked for the donations, the team said.

The United States has delivered more than 500 million vaccine doses to 114 countries.

Meanwhile, national COVID-19 numbers continue to fall. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reported that average daily cases are down 4% this week to 25,000; hospitalizations have dropped 17% to 1,400 per day; and daily deaths are down to 570 a day, which is a decrease of about 17%.

New national estimates show that Omicron’s subvariant BA.2 now accounts for 72% of circulating variants nationally, she said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, reported that recent data supports the need for a second booster among certain people 50 and older – a move authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week.

“The effectiveness of the first booster dose we know wanes over time, and growing evidence shows a second dose can restore vaccine effectiveness for certain populations,” he said.

Dr. Fauci reported findings from an Israeli study of more than 1 million people 60 and older, which showed that an additional booster dose after 4 months lowered the rate of infection by two times and lowered the rate of severe infection by more than four times.

Another study from Israeli scientists showed that out of half a million people 60 and older, a second booster after 4 months brought a 78% reduction in death, compared to those who received only the first boost.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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

A new COVID-19 variant has cropped up in the United Kingdom – a combination of the original Omicron strain and its subvariant BA.2 that may be more contagious than BA.2, ABC News reported.

As of last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency had found 637 cases of the variant, known as XE. The earliest case was found Jan. 19.

The new strain is known as a recombinant, which means it is a combination of two variants or viruses.

XE makes up less than 1% of sequenced cases in the United Kingdom so far, and there is no evidence yet that the strain leads to more severe disease or less vaccine protection.

“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” John Brownstein, PhD, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”

A World Health Organization update published March 29 notes XE’s high transmissibility and says it may have a growth advantage of 10% over the BA.2 subvariant that now makes up more than 70% of cases in the United States.

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