MDedge Emergency Medicine

Texas-based researchers have developed a vaccine that blocks the euphoric effects of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid that is increasingly involved in opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

In studies in male and female mice, the vaccine generated significant and long-lasting levels of anti-fentanyl antibodies that were highly effective at reducing the antinociceptive, behavioral, and physiological effects of the drug.

The vaccine prevents fentanyl from entering the brain. “Thus, the individual will not feel the euphoric effects and can ‘get back on the wagon’ to sobriety,” lead investigator Colin Haile, MD, PhD, with University of Houston and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute, said in a news release. The study was published online in the journal Pharmaceutics.

“The anti-fentanyl antibodies were specific to fentanyl and a fentanyl derivative and did not cross-react with other opioids, such as morphine. That means a vaccinated person would still be able to be treated for pain relief with other opioids,” said Dr. Haile.

The vaccine did not cause any adverse effects in the immunized mice. The research team plans to start manufacturing clinical-grade vaccine in the coming months with clinical trials in humans planned soon.

If proven safe and effective in clinical testing, the vaccine could have major implications for the nation’s opioid epidemic by becoming a relapse prevention agent for people trying to quit using opioids, the researchers note.

The United States in 2021 recorded more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths – a record high, according to federal health officials – and fentanyl was involved in most of these deaths. 

Senior author Therese Kosten, PhD, director of the UH Developmental, Cognitive & Behavioral Neuroscience program, calls the new fentanyl vaccine a potential “game changer.”

“Fentanyl use and overdose is a particular treatment challenge that is not adequately addressed with current medications because of its pharmacodynamics, and managing acute overdose with the short-acting naloxone [Narcan] is not appropriately effective as multiple doses of naloxone are often needed to reverse fentanyl’s fatal effects,” said Dr. Kosten.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense through the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorders Program managed by RTI International’s Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance, which has funded Dr. Haile’s lab for several years to develop the anti-fentanyl vaccine. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. A provisional patent has been submitted by the University of Houston on behalf of four of the investigators containing technology related to the fentanyl vaccine.

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

Texas-based researchers have developed a vaccine that blocks the euphoric effects of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid that is increasingly involved in opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

In studies in male and female mice, the vaccine generated significant and long-lasting levels of anti-fentanyl antibodies that were highly effective at reducing the antinociceptive, behavioral, and physiological effects of the drug.

The vaccine prevents fentanyl from entering the brain. “Thus, the individual will not feel the euphoric effects and can ‘get back on the wagon’ to sobriety,” lead investigator Colin Haile, MD, PhD, with University of Houston and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute, said in a news release. The study was published online in the journal Pharmaceutics.

“The anti-fentanyl antibodies were specific to fentanyl and a fentanyl derivative and did not cross-react with other opioids, such as morphine. That means a vaccinated person would still be able to be treated for pain relief with other opioids,” said Dr. Haile.

The vaccine did not cause any adverse effects in the immunized mice. The research team plans to start manufacturing clinical-grade vaccine in the coming months with clinical trials in humans planned soon.

If proven safe and effective in clinical testing, the vaccine could have major implications for the nation’s opioid epidemic by becoming a relapse prevention agent for people trying to quit using opioids, the researchers note.

The United States in 2021 recorded more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths – a record high, according to federal health officials – and fentanyl was involved in most of these deaths. 

Senior author Therese Kosten, PhD, director of the UH Developmental, Cognitive & Behavioral Neuroscience program, calls the new fentanyl vaccine a potential “game changer.”

“Fentanyl use and overdose is a particular treatment challenge that is not adequately addressed with current medications because of its pharmacodynamics, and managing acute overdose with the short-acting naloxone [Narcan] is not appropriately effective as multiple doses of naloxone are often needed to reverse fentanyl’s fatal effects,” said Dr. Kosten.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense through the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorders Program managed by RTI International’s Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance, which has funded Dr. Haile’s lab for several years to develop the anti-fentanyl vaccine. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. A provisional patent has been submitted by the University of Houston on behalf of four of the investigators containing technology related to the fentanyl vaccine.

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

Texas-based researchers have developed a vaccine that blocks the euphoric effects of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid that is increasingly involved in opioid overdose deaths in the United States.

In studies in male and female mice, the vaccine generated significant and long-lasting levels of anti-fentanyl antibodies that were highly effective at reducing the antinociceptive, behavioral, and physiological effects of the drug.

The vaccine prevents fentanyl from entering the brain. “Thus, the individual will not feel the euphoric effects and can ‘get back on the wagon’ to sobriety,” lead investigator Colin Haile, MD, PhD, with University of Houston and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute, said in a news release. The study was published online in the journal Pharmaceutics.

“The anti-fentanyl antibodies were specific to fentanyl and a fentanyl derivative and did not cross-react with other opioids, such as morphine. That means a vaccinated person would still be able to be treated for pain relief with other opioids,” said Dr. Haile.

The vaccine did not cause any adverse effects in the immunized mice. The research team plans to start manufacturing clinical-grade vaccine in the coming months with clinical trials in humans planned soon.

If proven safe and effective in clinical testing, the vaccine could have major implications for the nation’s opioid epidemic by becoming a relapse prevention agent for people trying to quit using opioids, the researchers note.

The United States in 2021 recorded more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths – a record high, according to federal health officials – and fentanyl was involved in most of these deaths. 

Senior author Therese Kosten, PhD, director of the UH Developmental, Cognitive & Behavioral Neuroscience program, calls the new fentanyl vaccine a potential “game changer.”

“Fentanyl use and overdose is a particular treatment challenge that is not adequately addressed with current medications because of its pharmacodynamics, and managing acute overdose with the short-acting naloxone [Narcan] is not appropriately effective as multiple doses of naloxone are often needed to reverse fentanyl’s fatal effects,” said Dr. Kosten.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense through the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorders Program managed by RTI International’s Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders Alliance, which has funded Dr. Haile’s lab for several years to develop the anti-fentanyl vaccine. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. A provisional patent has been submitted by the University of Houston on behalf of four of the investigators containing technology related to the fentanyl vaccine.

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

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

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

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

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

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

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

CHICAGO – Another major study appears to back the use of intravenous iron repletion in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency, strengthening largely consistent evidence, researchers say, that the treatment may improve symptoms and prevent some HF-related hospital admissions.

To be sure, the IRONMAN trial, which compared intravenous iron versus usual care in such patients – most with reduced ejection fraction and not hospitalized – failed to show a benefit for its primary endpoint. The 18% reduction in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death seen in the trial, however encouraging, can only be called a trend (P = .07).

But the intervention showed signs of benefit for some secondary endpoints, including quality of life scores, and hinted at such an effect on HF hospitalization. Risk for the latter endpoint dropped 20% (P = .085) over a median follow-up of 2.7 years.

The findings “build upon the other data we have that correcting iron deficiency can help improve well-being, and particularly reduce the risk of hospitalization, in a broad range of [HF] patients,” said Paul Kalra, MD, of the University of Glasgow and Portsmouth (England) Hospitals University NHS Trust.

The tested regimen “was well tolerated with no safety concerns” and offers “reassurance about the long-term safety” of the intravenous iron it used, ferric derisomaltose (MonoFerric), in patients with HF, Dr. Kalra said at a media briefing on the trial.

The remarks preceded his formal presentation of IRONMAN at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Dr. Kalra is also lead author on the trial’s publication in The Lancet.

IRONMAN strengthens the base of evidence supporting intravenous iron in HF with iron deficiency, especially chronic HF in outpatients, Dr. Kalra and others said. It also supports efficacy for a form of intravenous iron not previously tested in a major HF trial.

Still, “the totality of data are now supporting intravenous iron per se,” regardless of the iron agent used, said Dr. Kalra. But ferric derisomaltose may have dosing advantages, he observed, “and we’ve now got these long-term safety data.”

The strongest prior support for intravenous iron in HF came from hospitalized patients who received it as ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) and were followed only 12 months. That was in the AFFIRM-AHF trial, published 2 years ago, which also missed its primary endpoint – the same one used in IRONMAN. Some outcomes in the two trials were similar.

The risk for HF hospitalization or CV death for intravenous iron therapy, compared with usual care, in AFFIRM-AHF fell 21% (P = .059), missing significance but apparently driven by a 26% drop in risk for HF readmissions (P = .013). But neither that trial nor IRONMAN suggested a benefit for CV mortality on its own.
 

The COVID effect

In IRONMAN, Dr. Kalra said, usual care could include oral iron supplementation, which 17% of patients in the control group received. That could potentially have kept the intravenous iron group from making a better showing for the primary endpoint, he proposed.

And some iron doses and other treatments were missed by a substantial number of patients in both groups who entered the trial after the United Kingdom’s national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he observed. “Patients were not able to come into hospitals for research visits, or in fact when they were able, may not have wanted to.”

So, the group conducted a “prespecified” sensitivity analysis that excluded the 9% of patients enrolled by the end of March 2020, about the time of the first lockdown, and followed the remainder for another 6 months.

In that analysis, risk for HF hospitalization or CV death declined 24% in the intravenous iron group, a marginal but significant result (P = .047) that was dominated by an improvement in HF hospitalizations.
 

Effects on guidelines

The intravenous iron recommendations in the European HF guidelines refer only to ferric carboxymaltose without mentioning other forms, such as ferric derisomaltose, “but this is now a class effect given the similarities between AFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN,” said Gregory D. Lewis, MD, Mass General Brigham, Boston, invited discussant for Dr. Kalra’s presentation at the AHA session.

“In the United States, we relegate IV iron to improvement in functional capacity as a comorbidity of heart failure. Perhaps this role will expand,” added Dr. Lewis, who is medical director of his center’s heart transplant program.

He also wondered aloud whether the purported clinical benefits of intravenous iron in HF patients with iron deficiency, not as yet supported by a significant primary-endpoint showing in one of the major trials, currently justify expansion of its use in practice.

“With the benefits of IV iron on exercise capacity and quality of life, and the safety of administering high doses of IV iron,” potentially reducing HF polypharmacy, he noted, “should we be considering IV iron more commonly for utilization in our patients even if we find that heart failure hospitalizations and mortality are only modestly improved?”

IRONMAN “asked whether there’s benefit to IV iron in the longer term,” Kiran Musunuru, MD, PhD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, observed at the media briefing. As the trial was reported, “that does in fact, seem to be the case,” said Dr. Musunuru, who was not involved in IRONMAN.

Therefore, he said, “this study reinforces the message that we should be routinely monitoring our heart failure patients for iron deficiency and supplementing them as needed.”

A commentary linked to the IRONMAN publication agreed. The trial “increases the evidence base for the treatment of iron deficiency with intravenous iron supplementation,” wrote the editorialists, led by Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College Hospital and School of Cardiovascular Sciences, London.

Patients with acute or chronic HF, iron deficiency, and reduced or mildly reduced ejection fractions “should be offered treatment with intravenous iron to reduce their risk of hospital admission for heart failure,” they concluded.
 

Mostly reduced-EF outpatients

The open-label, blinded-endpoint IRONMAN trial, conducted at 70 centers in the United Kingdom, entered adults with HF, ejection fractions 45% or lower within the previous 2 years, and iron deficiency defined as transferrin saturation less than 20% or serum ferritin levels below 100 mcg/L, the report states. They were either hospitalized for HF, had such a hospitalization within the past 6 months, or were outpatients with elevated natriuretic peptide levels; the third category accounted for two thirds of the trial population.

Of the 1,137 randomized patients, 569 were assigned to receive intravenous ferric derisomaltose at weight- and hemoglobin-adjusted dosages; 568 went to the usual-care group.

• HF hospitalization or CV death: RR, 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.00; P = .047)
• HF hospitalization: RR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.56-1.03; P = .077)

Fewer patients in the intravenous iron group experienced serious cardiac adverse events, 36% compared with 43% in for those on usual care, P = .016.

The recently updated European Society of Cardiology guidelines for HF made it a class 1 recommendation to assess iron status in every patient, Kalra observed. “It doesn›t specify how frequently, but I think we should be thinking about every 4-6 months.”

Dr. Kalra disclosed receiving research grants from Pharmacosmos; and consulting or lecturing for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Musunuru disclosed significant ownership interest in Verve Therapeutics and Variant Bio. Dr. Lewis disclosed relationships with NXT, American Regent, and RIVUS; and receiving research grants from Cytokinetics and Amgen.

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

CHICAGO – Another major study appears to back the use of intravenous iron repletion in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency, strengthening largely consistent evidence, researchers say, that the treatment may improve symptoms and prevent some HF-related hospital admissions.

To be sure, the IRONMAN trial, which compared intravenous iron versus usual care in such patients – most with reduced ejection fraction and not hospitalized – failed to show a benefit for its primary endpoint. The 18% reduction in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death seen in the trial, however encouraging, can only be called a trend (P = .07).

But the intervention showed signs of benefit for some secondary endpoints, including quality of life scores, and hinted at such an effect on HF hospitalization. Risk for the latter endpoint dropped 20% (P = .085) over a median follow-up of 2.7 years.

The findings “build upon the other data we have that correcting iron deficiency can help improve well-being, and particularly reduce the risk of hospitalization, in a broad range of [HF] patients,” said Paul Kalra, MD, of the University of Glasgow and Portsmouth (England) Hospitals University NHS Trust.

The tested regimen “was well tolerated with no safety concerns” and offers “reassurance about the long-term safety” of the intravenous iron it used, ferric derisomaltose (MonoFerric), in patients with HF, Dr. Kalra said at a media briefing on the trial.

The remarks preceded his formal presentation of IRONMAN at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Dr. Kalra is also lead author on the trial’s publication in The Lancet.

IRONMAN strengthens the base of evidence supporting intravenous iron in HF with iron deficiency, especially chronic HF in outpatients, Dr. Kalra and others said. It also supports efficacy for a form of intravenous iron not previously tested in a major HF trial.

Still, “the totality of data are now supporting intravenous iron per se,” regardless of the iron agent used, said Dr. Kalra. But ferric derisomaltose may have dosing advantages, he observed, “and we’ve now got these long-term safety data.”

The strongest prior support for intravenous iron in HF came from hospitalized patients who received it as ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) and were followed only 12 months. That was in the AFFIRM-AHF trial, published 2 years ago, which also missed its primary endpoint – the same one used in IRONMAN. Some outcomes in the two trials were similar.

The risk for HF hospitalization or CV death for intravenous iron therapy, compared with usual care, in AFFIRM-AHF fell 21% (P = .059), missing significance but apparently driven by a 26% drop in risk for HF readmissions (P = .013). But neither that trial nor IRONMAN suggested a benefit for CV mortality on its own.
 

The COVID effect

In IRONMAN, Dr. Kalra said, usual care could include oral iron supplementation, which 17% of patients in the control group received. That could potentially have kept the intravenous iron group from making a better showing for the primary endpoint, he proposed.

And some iron doses and other treatments were missed by a substantial number of patients in both groups who entered the trial after the United Kingdom’s national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he observed. “Patients were not able to come into hospitals for research visits, or in fact when they were able, may not have wanted to.”

So, the group conducted a “prespecified” sensitivity analysis that excluded the 9% of patients enrolled by the end of March 2020, about the time of the first lockdown, and followed the remainder for another 6 months.

In that analysis, risk for HF hospitalization or CV death declined 24% in the intravenous iron group, a marginal but significant result (P = .047) that was dominated by an improvement in HF hospitalizations.
 

Effects on guidelines

The intravenous iron recommendations in the European HF guidelines refer only to ferric carboxymaltose without mentioning other forms, such as ferric derisomaltose, “but this is now a class effect given the similarities between AFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN,” said Gregory D. Lewis, MD, Mass General Brigham, Boston, invited discussant for Dr. Kalra’s presentation at the AHA session.

“In the United States, we relegate IV iron to improvement in functional capacity as a comorbidity of heart failure. Perhaps this role will expand,” added Dr. Lewis, who is medical director of his center’s heart transplant program.

He also wondered aloud whether the purported clinical benefits of intravenous iron in HF patients with iron deficiency, not as yet supported by a significant primary-endpoint showing in one of the major trials, currently justify expansion of its use in practice.

“With the benefits of IV iron on exercise capacity and quality of life, and the safety of administering high doses of IV iron,” potentially reducing HF polypharmacy, he noted, “should we be considering IV iron more commonly for utilization in our patients even if we find that heart failure hospitalizations and mortality are only modestly improved?”

IRONMAN “asked whether there’s benefit to IV iron in the longer term,” Kiran Musunuru, MD, PhD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, observed at the media briefing. As the trial was reported, “that does in fact, seem to be the case,” said Dr. Musunuru, who was not involved in IRONMAN.

Therefore, he said, “this study reinforces the message that we should be routinely monitoring our heart failure patients for iron deficiency and supplementing them as needed.”

A commentary linked to the IRONMAN publication agreed. The trial “increases the evidence base for the treatment of iron deficiency with intravenous iron supplementation,” wrote the editorialists, led by Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College Hospital and School of Cardiovascular Sciences, London.

Patients with acute or chronic HF, iron deficiency, and reduced or mildly reduced ejection fractions “should be offered treatment with intravenous iron to reduce their risk of hospital admission for heart failure,” they concluded.
 

Mostly reduced-EF outpatients

The open-label, blinded-endpoint IRONMAN trial, conducted at 70 centers in the United Kingdom, entered adults with HF, ejection fractions 45% or lower within the previous 2 years, and iron deficiency defined as transferrin saturation less than 20% or serum ferritin levels below 100 mcg/L, the report states. They were either hospitalized for HF, had such a hospitalization within the past 6 months, or were outpatients with elevated natriuretic peptide levels; the third category accounted for two thirds of the trial population.

Of the 1,137 randomized patients, 569 were assigned to receive intravenous ferric derisomaltose at weight- and hemoglobin-adjusted dosages; 568 went to the usual-care group.

• HF hospitalization or CV death: RR, 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.00; P = .047)
• HF hospitalization: RR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.56-1.03; P = .077)

Fewer patients in the intravenous iron group experienced serious cardiac adverse events, 36% compared with 43% in for those on usual care, P = .016.

The recently updated European Society of Cardiology guidelines for HF made it a class 1 recommendation to assess iron status in every patient, Kalra observed. “It doesn›t specify how frequently, but I think we should be thinking about every 4-6 months.”

Dr. Kalra disclosed receiving research grants from Pharmacosmos; and consulting or lecturing for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Musunuru disclosed significant ownership interest in Verve Therapeutics and Variant Bio. Dr. Lewis disclosed relationships with NXT, American Regent, and RIVUS; and receiving research grants from Cytokinetics and Amgen.

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

CHICAGO – Another major study appears to back the use of intravenous iron repletion in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency, strengthening largely consistent evidence, researchers say, that the treatment may improve symptoms and prevent some HF-related hospital admissions.

To be sure, the IRONMAN trial, which compared intravenous iron versus usual care in such patients – most with reduced ejection fraction and not hospitalized – failed to show a benefit for its primary endpoint. The 18% reduction in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death seen in the trial, however encouraging, can only be called a trend (P = .07).

But the intervention showed signs of benefit for some secondary endpoints, including quality of life scores, and hinted at such an effect on HF hospitalization. Risk for the latter endpoint dropped 20% (P = .085) over a median follow-up of 2.7 years.

The findings “build upon the other data we have that correcting iron deficiency can help improve well-being, and particularly reduce the risk of hospitalization, in a broad range of [HF] patients,” said Paul Kalra, MD, of the University of Glasgow and Portsmouth (England) Hospitals University NHS Trust.

The tested regimen “was well tolerated with no safety concerns” and offers “reassurance about the long-term safety” of the intravenous iron it used, ferric derisomaltose (MonoFerric), in patients with HF, Dr. Kalra said at a media briefing on the trial.

The remarks preceded his formal presentation of IRONMAN at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Dr. Kalra is also lead author on the trial’s publication in The Lancet.

IRONMAN strengthens the base of evidence supporting intravenous iron in HF with iron deficiency, especially chronic HF in outpatients, Dr. Kalra and others said. It also supports efficacy for a form of intravenous iron not previously tested in a major HF trial.

Still, “the totality of data are now supporting intravenous iron per se,” regardless of the iron agent used, said Dr. Kalra. But ferric derisomaltose may have dosing advantages, he observed, “and we’ve now got these long-term safety data.”

The strongest prior support for intravenous iron in HF came from hospitalized patients who received it as ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) and were followed only 12 months. That was in the AFFIRM-AHF trial, published 2 years ago, which also missed its primary endpoint – the same one used in IRONMAN. Some outcomes in the two trials were similar.

The risk for HF hospitalization or CV death for intravenous iron therapy, compared with usual care, in AFFIRM-AHF fell 21% (P = .059), missing significance but apparently driven by a 26% drop in risk for HF readmissions (P = .013). But neither that trial nor IRONMAN suggested a benefit for CV mortality on its own.
 

The COVID effect

In IRONMAN, Dr. Kalra said, usual care could include oral iron supplementation, which 17% of patients in the control group received. That could potentially have kept the intravenous iron group from making a better showing for the primary endpoint, he proposed.

And some iron doses and other treatments were missed by a substantial number of patients in both groups who entered the trial after the United Kingdom’s national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he observed. “Patients were not able to come into hospitals for research visits, or in fact when they were able, may not have wanted to.”

So, the group conducted a “prespecified” sensitivity analysis that excluded the 9% of patients enrolled by the end of March 2020, about the time of the first lockdown, and followed the remainder for another 6 months.

In that analysis, risk for HF hospitalization or CV death declined 24% in the intravenous iron group, a marginal but significant result (P = .047) that was dominated by an improvement in HF hospitalizations.
 

Effects on guidelines

The intravenous iron recommendations in the European HF guidelines refer only to ferric carboxymaltose without mentioning other forms, such as ferric derisomaltose, “but this is now a class effect given the similarities between AFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN,” said Gregory D. Lewis, MD, Mass General Brigham, Boston, invited discussant for Dr. Kalra’s presentation at the AHA session.

“In the United States, we relegate IV iron to improvement in functional capacity as a comorbidity of heart failure. Perhaps this role will expand,” added Dr. Lewis, who is medical director of his center’s heart transplant program.

He also wondered aloud whether the purported clinical benefits of intravenous iron in HF patients with iron deficiency, not as yet supported by a significant primary-endpoint showing in one of the major trials, currently justify expansion of its use in practice.

“With the benefits of IV iron on exercise capacity and quality of life, and the safety of administering high doses of IV iron,” potentially reducing HF polypharmacy, he noted, “should we be considering IV iron more commonly for utilization in our patients even if we find that heart failure hospitalizations and mortality are only modestly improved?”

IRONMAN “asked whether there’s benefit to IV iron in the longer term,” Kiran Musunuru, MD, PhD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, observed at the media briefing. As the trial was reported, “that does in fact, seem to be the case,” said Dr. Musunuru, who was not involved in IRONMAN.

Therefore, he said, “this study reinforces the message that we should be routinely monitoring our heart failure patients for iron deficiency and supplementing them as needed.”

A commentary linked to the IRONMAN publication agreed. The trial “increases the evidence base for the treatment of iron deficiency with intravenous iron supplementation,” wrote the editorialists, led by Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College Hospital and School of Cardiovascular Sciences, London.

Patients with acute or chronic HF, iron deficiency, and reduced or mildly reduced ejection fractions “should be offered treatment with intravenous iron to reduce their risk of hospital admission for heart failure,” they concluded.
 

Mostly reduced-EF outpatients

The open-label, blinded-endpoint IRONMAN trial, conducted at 70 centers in the United Kingdom, entered adults with HF, ejection fractions 45% or lower within the previous 2 years, and iron deficiency defined as transferrin saturation less than 20% or serum ferritin levels below 100 mcg/L, the report states. They were either hospitalized for HF, had such a hospitalization within the past 6 months, or were outpatients with elevated natriuretic peptide levels; the third category accounted for two thirds of the trial population.

Of the 1,137 randomized patients, 569 were assigned to receive intravenous ferric derisomaltose at weight- and hemoglobin-adjusted dosages; 568 went to the usual-care group.

• HF hospitalization or CV death: RR, 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.00; P = .047)
• HF hospitalization: RR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.56-1.03; P = .077)

Fewer patients in the intravenous iron group experienced serious cardiac adverse events, 36% compared with 43% in for those on usual care, P = .016.

The recently updated European Society of Cardiology guidelines for HF made it a class 1 recommendation to assess iron status in every patient, Kalra observed. “It doesn›t specify how frequently, but I think we should be thinking about every 4-6 months.”

Dr. Kalra disclosed receiving research grants from Pharmacosmos; and consulting or lecturing for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Musunuru disclosed significant ownership interest in Verve Therapeutics and Variant Bio. Dr. Lewis disclosed relationships with NXT, American Regent, and RIVUS; and receiving research grants from Cytokinetics and Amgen.

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

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH, is part of a growing movement to fundamentally shift medical education to include training on how to cook healthy meals.

The way he sees it, the stakes couldn’t be higher. He believes doctors need to see food as medicine to be able to stem the tide of chronic disease.

About 6 in 10 adults in the United States live with chronic diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, costing $4.1 trillion in annual health care costs. Adult obesity rates are rising, as are obesity-related conditions such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

To turn the tide, Dr. Marvasti created a culinary medicine program in 2020 in collaboration with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and local chefs.

Dr. Marvasti, who is board certified in family medicine, graduated from the University of Arizona, Phoenix, where he serves as the director of the medical school’s Culinary Medicine Program.

The program offers an elective course for third- and fourth-year medical students, which introduces the evidence-based field of culinary medicine. Dr Marvasti’s goal is for the course to teach students how to use this science and the joy of cooking to improve long-term health outcomes for their patients.

As part of Dr. Marvasti’s program, students learn cooking fundamentals through chef demonstrations and hands-on practice – to teach students how food can be used to prevent and treat many chronic diseases.

One of the dishes students learn to make includes a quinoa salad made with cucumber, onion, bell peppers, corn, cherry tomatoes, beans, garlic, olive oil, and lemon juice. Another recipe includes a healthier take on dessert: Dark chocolate mousse made with three large, ripe avocados, dark chocolate powder, three tablespoons of agave or maple, coconut cream, nondairy milk, salt, and vanilla. Dr. Marvasti and his team are set to build out the existing program to develop additional resources for medically underserved and rural communities in Arizona, according to a statement from the university. These plans will be funded by a $750,000 grant from Novo Nordisk.

“We’re going to develop an open education curriculum to share, so it’s open access to everyone,” said Dr. Marvasti, who is also director of Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion and an associate professor at the university. “It can be adaptable at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level.”

Dr. Marvasti and his colleagues at the University of Arizona aren’t alone. In fact, culinary medicine programs are sprouting some serious legs.
 

Culinary medicine programs catch on

Jaclyn Albin, MD, CCMS, an associate professor in the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, conducted a scoping review of the literature on culinary medicine programs for medical students.* Her purpose was to learn how the programs were structured and how they assessed student knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrition counseling for patients.

Dr. Albin and her colleagues performed an initial literature search between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, of papers published between Jan. 1, 2012, and Aug. 1, 2020 – excluding some newer programs such as the one at the University of Arizona. The results of their research were published in Academic Medicine.

Ultimately, the authors identified and examined 34 programs offering medical student–focused culinary medicine courses.

Program instructors typically included a team of physicians, dietitians, chefs, and other professionals, the study found.

Most program participants exclusively taught medical students, though the training years of participants varied among programs, and they included first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. Some programs allowed students from outside their respective medical school to participate in the trainings.

As for the formats of the program, most included cohorts of 10-20 students attending multiple 2- to 3-hour sessions over the course of several months. The University of Alabama at Birmingham offers one of the longest courses, which spans 4-5 months, according to the paper. In contrast, the University of Rochester (N.Y.) program offers only a 1-day lab divided into four sessions, with each session lasting about 2 hours.

The culinary medicine programs’ course sessions tended to include a 10- to 30-minute didactic session involving videos, research articles, culinary theories, and other lectures, a 60- to 90-minute hands-on cooking session, and a 30-minute discussion around nutrition, culture, and patient care.

Most programs used pre- and post-program surveys to evaluate outcomes, though results varied between programs, according to the study. While each program evaluation had different metrics, the surveys generally revealed students felt more confident discussing dietary interventions with patients and in their own cooking skills following completion.
 

Course correction

Most of those programs are unfunded or minimally funded, Dr. Albin said.

Her own program, which is immensely popular with medical students, is one she teaches on a volunteer basis.

“I do this for free, in the evenings, because I believe in it,” she said.

Medical school education real estate is limited, so convincing medical schools to add something to the curriculum is difficult, Dr. Albin noted.

But it’s worth it, she said, because nutrition is the underpinning of so many diseases.

“Food is the top risk factor for early death in the U.S.,” Dr. Albin said. “I like to say that five times in a row. People have not digested it.”

During her culinary medicine courses, she also asks her medical students: “Who is comfortable in the kitchen?” Some sheepishly raise their hands, she said. Some don’t. Many don’t know anything about cooking.

Then she teaches students about healthy food and how to make it. As part of her program, medical students are given a pantry starter kit with olive oil and a variety of spices to take home and use.

Some recipes Dr. Albin teaches includes mango chili shrimp salad with lime vinaigrette, eggplant sliders, yellow vegetable curry, and strawberry banana chia pudding.

“If you figure out how to do it for your own busy, everyday life, you are now empowered to tell someone else about it,” she said.
 

A dietitian’s involvement

Milette Siler, RD, LD, CCMS, works with Dr. Albin to educate medical students and patients about food as medicine. A significant chunk of her job involves teaching future doctors what dietitians do.

When the class starts, many students don’t know two of the five basic things dietitians do, Ms. Siler said. By the end of the class, all students know what a dietitian does.

That’s important as students go on to become doctors.

“For us to remove barriers to care, we have to acknowledge most patients’ entry into health care is their physician,” she said. “The dietitian is often a referral. Doctors need to know enough to do no harm.”

Clinicians are often siloed, she said, and the key to better serving patients is partnership, transparency, and relationships. “I think everybody is at a point where everyone is saying what we’re doing isn’t working,” she said. “The American public deserves better, physicians deserve better, and clinicians deserve better.”
 

Popular with students

While the old guard has been slow to embrace the shift, her students have helped drive the growth of the culinary medicine field, Dr. Albin said.

“They are not settling for the inadequacy that somehow the rest of us did,” she continued. “I’m so hopeful for the future of the health system. We have a generation of people who will not stand for neglecting the most vital elements.”

Courtesy Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH

Lyndon Bui, a second-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, is an example of one of these people.

As a member of a culinary medicine interest group on campus, he said, he has learned a lot about the importance of diet for long-term health. This has given him confidence to talk about food and nutrition.

His group does cooking demos at the Phoenix Farmers Market using food from various local vendors. They usually make a salad from local greens and cook seasonal veggies in a stir fry, he said.

They’ve previously made salad with microgreens – young seedlings of edible vegetables and herbs – and pomegranate seeds with a honey mustard vinaigrette, eggplant or cucumber, and hummus on pita bread, as well as almond butter and honey sandwiches, according to the university.

The group also talks with people in the community, answers questions, and learns about community needs.

Mr. Bui’s participation in this group has helped him cultivate a passion for community outreach that he wants to incorporate into his career.

“I feel like I have the knowledge to provide better advice to patients,” he said. “Knowing all these things about food, I feel more comfortable talking about it and more inclined to refer to a dietitian when maybe I wouldn’t have before.”
 

Family physician applauds culinary medicine programs

When Angie Neison, MD, CCMS, went to medical school, she was surprised there wasn’t more education on nutrition.

In fact, on average, physicians receive less than 20 hours of nutrition education, according to the University of Arizona.

Now 15 years into her career as a family physician, Dr. Neison says nutrition is a huge part of her practice. She spends time working to bust myths about nutrition for her patients – including that healthy food is boring and bland, that making it is time consuming, and that healthy food is expensive. She also spends time teaching aspects of culinary medicine to her colleagues – many of whom are well into their careers – so they can better serve their patients.

It’s worth it to spend time learning about nutrition, she said, whether that’s as a medical student in a culinary medicine program or a practicing physician taking additional courses.

Nutrition education in medical school hasn’t been a priority, she said, maybe because there is so much to learn, or maybe because there is no money to be made in prevention.

“If doctors learn it, they are able to better guide patients,” she said.

Correction, 11/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Albin's institution.
 

Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH, is part of a growing movement to fundamentally shift medical education to include training on how to cook healthy meals.

The way he sees it, the stakes couldn’t be higher. He believes doctors need to see food as medicine to be able to stem the tide of chronic disease.

About 6 in 10 adults in the United States live with chronic diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, costing $4.1 trillion in annual health care costs. Adult obesity rates are rising, as are obesity-related conditions such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

To turn the tide, Dr. Marvasti created a culinary medicine program in 2020 in collaboration with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and local chefs.

Dr. Marvasti, who is board certified in family medicine, graduated from the University of Arizona, Phoenix, where he serves as the director of the medical school’s Culinary Medicine Program.

The program offers an elective course for third- and fourth-year medical students, which introduces the evidence-based field of culinary medicine. Dr Marvasti’s goal is for the course to teach students how to use this science and the joy of cooking to improve long-term health outcomes for their patients.

As part of Dr. Marvasti’s program, students learn cooking fundamentals through chef demonstrations and hands-on practice – to teach students how food can be used to prevent and treat many chronic diseases.

One of the dishes students learn to make includes a quinoa salad made with cucumber, onion, bell peppers, corn, cherry tomatoes, beans, garlic, olive oil, and lemon juice. Another recipe includes a healthier take on dessert: Dark chocolate mousse made with three large, ripe avocados, dark chocolate powder, three tablespoons of agave or maple, coconut cream, nondairy milk, salt, and vanilla. Dr. Marvasti and his team are set to build out the existing program to develop additional resources for medically underserved and rural communities in Arizona, according to a statement from the university. These plans will be funded by a $750,000 grant from Novo Nordisk.

“We’re going to develop an open education curriculum to share, so it’s open access to everyone,” said Dr. Marvasti, who is also director of Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion and an associate professor at the university. “It can be adaptable at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level.”

Dr. Marvasti and his colleagues at the University of Arizona aren’t alone. In fact, culinary medicine programs are sprouting some serious legs.
 

Culinary medicine programs catch on

Jaclyn Albin, MD, CCMS, an associate professor in the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, conducted a scoping review of the literature on culinary medicine programs for medical students.* Her purpose was to learn how the programs were structured and how they assessed student knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrition counseling for patients.

Dr. Albin and her colleagues performed an initial literature search between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, of papers published between Jan. 1, 2012, and Aug. 1, 2020 – excluding some newer programs such as the one at the University of Arizona. The results of their research were published in Academic Medicine.

Ultimately, the authors identified and examined 34 programs offering medical student–focused culinary medicine courses.

Program instructors typically included a team of physicians, dietitians, chefs, and other professionals, the study found.

Most program participants exclusively taught medical students, though the training years of participants varied among programs, and they included first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. Some programs allowed students from outside their respective medical school to participate in the trainings.

As for the formats of the program, most included cohorts of 10-20 students attending multiple 2- to 3-hour sessions over the course of several months. The University of Alabama at Birmingham offers one of the longest courses, which spans 4-5 months, according to the paper. In contrast, the University of Rochester (N.Y.) program offers only a 1-day lab divided into four sessions, with each session lasting about 2 hours.

The culinary medicine programs’ course sessions tended to include a 10- to 30-minute didactic session involving videos, research articles, culinary theories, and other lectures, a 60- to 90-minute hands-on cooking session, and a 30-minute discussion around nutrition, culture, and patient care.

Most programs used pre- and post-program surveys to evaluate outcomes, though results varied between programs, according to the study. While each program evaluation had different metrics, the surveys generally revealed students felt more confident discussing dietary interventions with patients and in their own cooking skills following completion.
 

Course correction

Most of those programs are unfunded or minimally funded, Dr. Albin said.

Her own program, which is immensely popular with medical students, is one she teaches on a volunteer basis.

“I do this for free, in the evenings, because I believe in it,” she said.

Medical school education real estate is limited, so convincing medical schools to add something to the curriculum is difficult, Dr. Albin noted.

But it’s worth it, she said, because nutrition is the underpinning of so many diseases.

“Food is the top risk factor for early death in the U.S.,” Dr. Albin said. “I like to say that five times in a row. People have not digested it.”

During her culinary medicine courses, she also asks her medical students: “Who is comfortable in the kitchen?” Some sheepishly raise their hands, she said. Some don’t. Many don’t know anything about cooking.

Then she teaches students about healthy food and how to make it. As part of her program, medical students are given a pantry starter kit with olive oil and a variety of spices to take home and use.

Some recipes Dr. Albin teaches includes mango chili shrimp salad with lime vinaigrette, eggplant sliders, yellow vegetable curry, and strawberry banana chia pudding.

“If you figure out how to do it for your own busy, everyday life, you are now empowered to tell someone else about it,” she said.
 

A dietitian’s involvement

Milette Siler, RD, LD, CCMS, works with Dr. Albin to educate medical students and patients about food as medicine. A significant chunk of her job involves teaching future doctors what dietitians do.

When the class starts, many students don’t know two of the five basic things dietitians do, Ms. Siler said. By the end of the class, all students know what a dietitian does.

That’s important as students go on to become doctors.

“For us to remove barriers to care, we have to acknowledge most patients’ entry into health care is their physician,” she said. “The dietitian is often a referral. Doctors need to know enough to do no harm.”

Clinicians are often siloed, she said, and the key to better serving patients is partnership, transparency, and relationships. “I think everybody is at a point where everyone is saying what we’re doing isn’t working,” she said. “The American public deserves better, physicians deserve better, and clinicians deserve better.”
 

Popular with students

While the old guard has been slow to embrace the shift, her students have helped drive the growth of the culinary medicine field, Dr. Albin said.

“They are not settling for the inadequacy that somehow the rest of us did,” she continued. “I’m so hopeful for the future of the health system. We have a generation of people who will not stand for neglecting the most vital elements.”

Courtesy Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH

Lyndon Bui, a second-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, is an example of one of these people.

As a member of a culinary medicine interest group on campus, he said, he has learned a lot about the importance of diet for long-term health. This has given him confidence to talk about food and nutrition.

His group does cooking demos at the Phoenix Farmers Market using food from various local vendors. They usually make a salad from local greens and cook seasonal veggies in a stir fry, he said.

They’ve previously made salad with microgreens – young seedlings of edible vegetables and herbs – and pomegranate seeds with a honey mustard vinaigrette, eggplant or cucumber, and hummus on pita bread, as well as almond butter and honey sandwiches, according to the university.

The group also talks with people in the community, answers questions, and learns about community needs.

Mr. Bui’s participation in this group has helped him cultivate a passion for community outreach that he wants to incorporate into his career.

“I feel like I have the knowledge to provide better advice to patients,” he said. “Knowing all these things about food, I feel more comfortable talking about it and more inclined to refer to a dietitian when maybe I wouldn’t have before.”
 

Family physician applauds culinary medicine programs

When Angie Neison, MD, CCMS, went to medical school, she was surprised there wasn’t more education on nutrition.

In fact, on average, physicians receive less than 20 hours of nutrition education, according to the University of Arizona.

Now 15 years into her career as a family physician, Dr. Neison says nutrition is a huge part of her practice. She spends time working to bust myths about nutrition for her patients – including that healthy food is boring and bland, that making it is time consuming, and that healthy food is expensive. She also spends time teaching aspects of culinary medicine to her colleagues – many of whom are well into their careers – so they can better serve their patients.

It’s worth it to spend time learning about nutrition, she said, whether that’s as a medical student in a culinary medicine program or a practicing physician taking additional courses.

Nutrition education in medical school hasn’t been a priority, she said, maybe because there is so much to learn, or maybe because there is no money to be made in prevention.

“If doctors learn it, they are able to better guide patients,” she said.

Correction, 11/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Albin's institution.
 

Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH, is part of a growing movement to fundamentally shift medical education to include training on how to cook healthy meals.

The way he sees it, the stakes couldn’t be higher. He believes doctors need to see food as medicine to be able to stem the tide of chronic disease.

About 6 in 10 adults in the United States live with chronic diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, costing $4.1 trillion in annual health care costs. Adult obesity rates are rising, as are obesity-related conditions such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

To turn the tide, Dr. Marvasti created a culinary medicine program in 2020 in collaboration with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and local chefs.

Dr. Marvasti, who is board certified in family medicine, graduated from the University of Arizona, Phoenix, where he serves as the director of the medical school’s Culinary Medicine Program.

The program offers an elective course for third- and fourth-year medical students, which introduces the evidence-based field of culinary medicine. Dr Marvasti’s goal is for the course to teach students how to use this science and the joy of cooking to improve long-term health outcomes for their patients.

As part of Dr. Marvasti’s program, students learn cooking fundamentals through chef demonstrations and hands-on practice – to teach students how food can be used to prevent and treat many chronic diseases.

One of the dishes students learn to make includes a quinoa salad made with cucumber, onion, bell peppers, corn, cherry tomatoes, beans, garlic, olive oil, and lemon juice. Another recipe includes a healthier take on dessert: Dark chocolate mousse made with three large, ripe avocados, dark chocolate powder, three tablespoons of agave or maple, coconut cream, nondairy milk, salt, and vanilla. Dr. Marvasti and his team are set to build out the existing program to develop additional resources for medically underserved and rural communities in Arizona, according to a statement from the university. These plans will be funded by a $750,000 grant from Novo Nordisk.

“We’re going to develop an open education curriculum to share, so it’s open access to everyone,” said Dr. Marvasti, who is also director of Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion and an associate professor at the university. “It can be adaptable at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level.”

Dr. Marvasti and his colleagues at the University of Arizona aren’t alone. In fact, culinary medicine programs are sprouting some serious legs.
 

Culinary medicine programs catch on

Jaclyn Albin, MD, CCMS, an associate professor in the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, conducted a scoping review of the literature on culinary medicine programs for medical students.* Her purpose was to learn how the programs were structured and how they assessed student knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrition counseling for patients.

Dr. Albin and her colleagues performed an initial literature search between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, of papers published between Jan. 1, 2012, and Aug. 1, 2020 – excluding some newer programs such as the one at the University of Arizona. The results of their research were published in Academic Medicine.

Ultimately, the authors identified and examined 34 programs offering medical student–focused culinary medicine courses.

Program instructors typically included a team of physicians, dietitians, chefs, and other professionals, the study found.

Most program participants exclusively taught medical students, though the training years of participants varied among programs, and they included first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. Some programs allowed students from outside their respective medical school to participate in the trainings.

As for the formats of the program, most included cohorts of 10-20 students attending multiple 2- to 3-hour sessions over the course of several months. The University of Alabama at Birmingham offers one of the longest courses, which spans 4-5 months, according to the paper. In contrast, the University of Rochester (N.Y.) program offers only a 1-day lab divided into four sessions, with each session lasting about 2 hours.

The culinary medicine programs’ course sessions tended to include a 10- to 30-minute didactic session involving videos, research articles, culinary theories, and other lectures, a 60- to 90-minute hands-on cooking session, and a 30-minute discussion around nutrition, culture, and patient care.

Most programs used pre- and post-program surveys to evaluate outcomes, though results varied between programs, according to the study. While each program evaluation had different metrics, the surveys generally revealed students felt more confident discussing dietary interventions with patients and in their own cooking skills following completion.
 

Course correction

Most of those programs are unfunded or minimally funded, Dr. Albin said.

Her own program, which is immensely popular with medical students, is one she teaches on a volunteer basis.

“I do this for free, in the evenings, because I believe in it,” she said.

Medical school education real estate is limited, so convincing medical schools to add something to the curriculum is difficult, Dr. Albin noted.

But it’s worth it, she said, because nutrition is the underpinning of so many diseases.

“Food is the top risk factor for early death in the U.S.,” Dr. Albin said. “I like to say that five times in a row. People have not digested it.”

During her culinary medicine courses, she also asks her medical students: “Who is comfortable in the kitchen?” Some sheepishly raise their hands, she said. Some don’t. Many don’t know anything about cooking.

Then she teaches students about healthy food and how to make it. As part of her program, medical students are given a pantry starter kit with olive oil and a variety of spices to take home and use.

Some recipes Dr. Albin teaches includes mango chili shrimp salad with lime vinaigrette, eggplant sliders, yellow vegetable curry, and strawberry banana chia pudding.

“If you figure out how to do it for your own busy, everyday life, you are now empowered to tell someone else about it,” she said.
 

A dietitian’s involvement

Milette Siler, RD, LD, CCMS, works with Dr. Albin to educate medical students and patients about food as medicine. A significant chunk of her job involves teaching future doctors what dietitians do.

When the class starts, many students don’t know two of the five basic things dietitians do, Ms. Siler said. By the end of the class, all students know what a dietitian does.

That’s important as students go on to become doctors.

“For us to remove barriers to care, we have to acknowledge most patients’ entry into health care is their physician,” she said. “The dietitian is often a referral. Doctors need to know enough to do no harm.”

Clinicians are often siloed, she said, and the key to better serving patients is partnership, transparency, and relationships. “I think everybody is at a point where everyone is saying what we’re doing isn’t working,” she said. “The American public deserves better, physicians deserve better, and clinicians deserve better.”
 

Popular with students

While the old guard has been slow to embrace the shift, her students have helped drive the growth of the culinary medicine field, Dr. Albin said.

“They are not settling for the inadequacy that somehow the rest of us did,” she continued. “I’m so hopeful for the future of the health system. We have a generation of people who will not stand for neglecting the most vital elements.”

Courtesy Farshad Fani Marvasti, MD, MPH

Lyndon Bui, a second-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, is an example of one of these people.

As a member of a culinary medicine interest group on campus, he said, he has learned a lot about the importance of diet for long-term health. This has given him confidence to talk about food and nutrition.

His group does cooking demos at the Phoenix Farmers Market using food from various local vendors. They usually make a salad from local greens and cook seasonal veggies in a stir fry, he said.

They’ve previously made salad with microgreens – young seedlings of edible vegetables and herbs – and pomegranate seeds with a honey mustard vinaigrette, eggplant or cucumber, and hummus on pita bread, as well as almond butter and honey sandwiches, according to the university.

The group also talks with people in the community, answers questions, and learns about community needs.

Mr. Bui’s participation in this group has helped him cultivate a passion for community outreach that he wants to incorporate into his career.

“I feel like I have the knowledge to provide better advice to patients,” he said. “Knowing all these things about food, I feel more comfortable talking about it and more inclined to refer to a dietitian when maybe I wouldn’t have before.”
 

Family physician applauds culinary medicine programs

When Angie Neison, MD, CCMS, went to medical school, she was surprised there wasn’t more education on nutrition.

In fact, on average, physicians receive less than 20 hours of nutrition education, according to the University of Arizona.

Now 15 years into her career as a family physician, Dr. Neison says nutrition is a huge part of her practice. She spends time working to bust myths about nutrition for her patients – including that healthy food is boring and bland, that making it is time consuming, and that healthy food is expensive. She also spends time teaching aspects of culinary medicine to her colleagues – many of whom are well into their careers – so they can better serve their patients.

It’s worth it to spend time learning about nutrition, she said, whether that’s as a medical student in a culinary medicine program or a practicing physician taking additional courses.

Nutrition education in medical school hasn’t been a priority, she said, maybe because there is so much to learn, or maybe because there is no money to be made in prevention.

“If doctors learn it, they are able to better guide patients,” she said.

Correction, 11/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Albin's institution.
 

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

What’s the opposite of an antibiotic?

Everyone knows that LOTME loves a good dichotomy: yin/yang, good/evil, heads/tails, particle/wave, peanut butter/jelly. They’re all great. We’re also big fans of microbiomes, particularly the gut microbiome. But what if we could combine the two? A healthy and nutritious story about the gut microbiome, with a dash of added dichotomy for flavor. Is such a thing even possible? Let’s find out.

Nastya Dulhiier/Unsplash

First, we need an antibiotic, a drug designed to fight bacterial infections. If you’ve got strep throat, otitis media, or bubonic plague, there’s a good chance you will receive an antibiotic. That antibiotic will kill the bad bacteria that are making you sick, but it will also kill a lot of the good bacteria that inhabit your gut microbiome, which results in side effects like bloating and diarrhea.

It comes down to diversity, explained Elisa Marroquin, PhD, of Texas Christian University (Go Horned Frogs!): “In a human community, we need people that have different professions because we don’t all know how to do every single job. And so the same happens with bacteria. We need lots of different gut bacteria that know how to do different things.”

She and her colleagues reviewed 29 studies published over the last 7 years and found a way to preserve the diversity of a human gut microbiome that’s dealing with an antibiotic. Their solution? Prescribe a probiotic.

The way to fight the effects of stopping a bacterial infection is to provide food for what are, basically, other bacterial infections. Antibiotic/probiotic is a prescription for dichotomy, and it means we managed to combine gut microbiomes with a dichotomy. And you didn’t think we could do it.
 

The earphone of hearing aids

It’s estimated that up to 75% of people who need hearing aids don’t wear them. Why? Well, there’s the social stigma about not wanting to appear too old, and then there’s the cost factor.

Antoni Shkraba/Pexels

Is there a cheaper, less stigmatizing option to amplify hearing? The answer, according to otolaryngologist Yen-fu Cheng, MD, of Taipei Veterans General Hospital and associates, is wireless earphones. AirPods, if you want to be brand specific.

Airpods can be on the more expensive side – running about $129 for AirPods 2 and $249 for AirPods Pro – but when compared with premium hearing aids ($10,000), or even basic aids (about $1,500), the Apple products come off inexpensive after all.

The team tested the premium and basic hearing aids against the AirPods 2 and the AirPod Pro using Apple’s Live Listen feature, which helps amplify sound through the company’s wireless earphones and iPhones and was initially designed to assist people with normal hearing in situations such as birdwatching.

The AirPods Pro worked just as well as the basic hearing aid but not quite as well as the premium hearing aid in a quiet setting, while the AirPods 2 performed the worst. When tested in a noisy setting, the AirPods Pro was pretty comparable to the premium hearing aid, as long as the noise came from a lateral direction. Neither of the AirPod models did as well as the hearing aids with head-on noises.

Wireless earbuds may not be the perfect solution from a clinical standpoint, but they’re a good start for people who don’t have access to hearing aids, Dr. Cheng noted.

So who says headphones damage your hearing? They might actually help.
 

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the computer my soul to keep

Radiation is the boring hazard of space travel. No one dies in a space horror movie because they’ve been slowly exposed to too much cosmic radiation. It’s always “thrown out the airlock” this and “eaten by a xenomorph” that.

Michael Chiara/Unsplash

Radiation, however, is not something that can be ignored, but it turns out that a potential solution is another science fiction staple: artificial hibernation. Generally in sci-fi, hibernation is a plot convenience to get people from point A to point B in a ship that doesn’t break the laws of physics. Here on Earth, though, it is well known that animals naturally entering a state of torpor during hibernation gain significant resistance to radiation.

The problem, of course, is that humans don’t hibernate, and no matter how hard people who work 100-hour weeks for Elon Musk try, sleeping for months on end is simply something we can’t do. However, a new study shows that it’s possible to induce this torpor state in animals that don’t naturally hibernate. By injecting rats with adenosine 5’-monophosphate monohydrate and keeping them in a room held at 16° C, an international team of scientists successfully induced a synthetic torpor state.

That’s not all they did: The scientists also exposed the hibernating rats to a large dose of radiation approximating that found in deep space. Which isn’t something we’d like to explain to our significant other when we got home from work. “So how was your day?” “Oh, I irradiated a bunch of sleeping rats. … Don’t worry they’re fine!” Which they were. Thanks to the hypoxic and hypothermic state, the tissue was spared damage from the high-energy ion radiation.

Obviously, there’s a big difference between a rat and a human and a lot of work to be done, but the study does show that artificial hibernation is possible. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to fall asleep and wake up light-years away under an alien sky, and we won’t be horrifically mutated or riddled with cancer. If, however, you find yourself in hibernation on your way to Jupiter (or Saturn) to investigate a mysterious black monolith, we suggest sleeping with one eye open and gripping your pillow tight.

What’s the opposite of an antibiotic?

Everyone knows that LOTME loves a good dichotomy: yin/yang, good/evil, heads/tails, particle/wave, peanut butter/jelly. They’re all great. We’re also big fans of microbiomes, particularly the gut microbiome. But what if we could combine the two? A healthy and nutritious story about the gut microbiome, with a dash of added dichotomy for flavor. Is such a thing even possible? Let’s find out.

Nastya Dulhiier/Unsplash

First, we need an antibiotic, a drug designed to fight bacterial infections. If you’ve got strep throat, otitis media, or bubonic plague, there’s a good chance you will receive an antibiotic. That antibiotic will kill the bad bacteria that are making you sick, but it will also kill a lot of the good bacteria that inhabit your gut microbiome, which results in side effects like bloating and diarrhea.

It comes down to diversity, explained Elisa Marroquin, PhD, of Texas Christian University (Go Horned Frogs!): “In a human community, we need people that have different professions because we don’t all know how to do every single job. And so the same happens with bacteria. We need lots of different gut bacteria that know how to do different things.”

She and her colleagues reviewed 29 studies published over the last 7 years and found a way to preserve the diversity of a human gut microbiome that’s dealing with an antibiotic. Their solution? Prescribe a probiotic.

The way to fight the effects of stopping a bacterial infection is to provide food for what are, basically, other bacterial infections. Antibiotic/probiotic is a prescription for dichotomy, and it means we managed to combine gut microbiomes with a dichotomy. And you didn’t think we could do it.
 

The earphone of hearing aids

It’s estimated that up to 75% of people who need hearing aids don’t wear them. Why? Well, there’s the social stigma about not wanting to appear too old, and then there’s the cost factor.

Antoni Shkraba/Pexels

Is there a cheaper, less stigmatizing option to amplify hearing? The answer, according to otolaryngologist Yen-fu Cheng, MD, of Taipei Veterans General Hospital and associates, is wireless earphones. AirPods, if you want to be brand specific.

Airpods can be on the more expensive side – running about $129 for AirPods 2 and $249 for AirPods Pro – but when compared with premium hearing aids ($10,000), or even basic aids (about $1,500), the Apple products come off inexpensive after all.

The team tested the premium and basic hearing aids against the AirPods 2 and the AirPod Pro using Apple’s Live Listen feature, which helps amplify sound through the company’s wireless earphones and iPhones and was initially designed to assist people with normal hearing in situations such as birdwatching.

The AirPods Pro worked just as well as the basic hearing aid but not quite as well as the premium hearing aid in a quiet setting, while the AirPods 2 performed the worst. When tested in a noisy setting, the AirPods Pro was pretty comparable to the premium hearing aid, as long as the noise came from a lateral direction. Neither of the AirPod models did as well as the hearing aids with head-on noises.

Wireless earbuds may not be the perfect solution from a clinical standpoint, but they’re a good start for people who don’t have access to hearing aids, Dr. Cheng noted.

So who says headphones damage your hearing? They might actually help.
 

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the computer my soul to keep

Radiation is the boring hazard of space travel. No one dies in a space horror movie because they’ve been slowly exposed to too much cosmic radiation. It’s always “thrown out the airlock” this and “eaten by a xenomorph” that.

Michael Chiara/Unsplash

Radiation, however, is not something that can be ignored, but it turns out that a potential solution is another science fiction staple: artificial hibernation. Generally in sci-fi, hibernation is a plot convenience to get people from point A to point B in a ship that doesn’t break the laws of physics. Here on Earth, though, it is well known that animals naturally entering a state of torpor during hibernation gain significant resistance to radiation.

The problem, of course, is that humans don’t hibernate, and no matter how hard people who work 100-hour weeks for Elon Musk try, sleeping for months on end is simply something we can’t do. However, a new study shows that it’s possible to induce this torpor state in animals that don’t naturally hibernate. By injecting rats with adenosine 5’-monophosphate monohydrate and keeping them in a room held at 16° C, an international team of scientists successfully induced a synthetic torpor state.

That’s not all they did: The scientists also exposed the hibernating rats to a large dose of radiation approximating that found in deep space. Which isn’t something we’d like to explain to our significant other when we got home from work. “So how was your day?” “Oh, I irradiated a bunch of sleeping rats. … Don’t worry they’re fine!” Which they were. Thanks to the hypoxic and hypothermic state, the tissue was spared damage from the high-energy ion radiation.

Obviously, there’s a big difference between a rat and a human and a lot of work to be done, but the study does show that artificial hibernation is possible. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to fall asleep and wake up light-years away under an alien sky, and we won’t be horrifically mutated or riddled with cancer. If, however, you find yourself in hibernation on your way to Jupiter (or Saturn) to investigate a mysterious black monolith, we suggest sleeping with one eye open and gripping your pillow tight.

What’s the opposite of an antibiotic?

Everyone knows that LOTME loves a good dichotomy: yin/yang, good/evil, heads/tails, particle/wave, peanut butter/jelly. They’re all great. We’re also big fans of microbiomes, particularly the gut microbiome. But what if we could combine the two? A healthy and nutritious story about the gut microbiome, with a dash of added dichotomy for flavor. Is such a thing even possible? Let’s find out.

Nastya Dulhiier/Unsplash

First, we need an antibiotic, a drug designed to fight bacterial infections. If you’ve got strep throat, otitis media, or bubonic plague, there’s a good chance you will receive an antibiotic. That antibiotic will kill the bad bacteria that are making you sick, but it will also kill a lot of the good bacteria that inhabit your gut microbiome, which results in side effects like bloating and diarrhea.

It comes down to diversity, explained Elisa Marroquin, PhD, of Texas Christian University (Go Horned Frogs!): “In a human community, we need people that have different professions because we don’t all know how to do every single job. And so the same happens with bacteria. We need lots of different gut bacteria that know how to do different things.”

She and her colleagues reviewed 29 studies published over the last 7 years and found a way to preserve the diversity of a human gut microbiome that’s dealing with an antibiotic. Their solution? Prescribe a probiotic.

The way to fight the effects of stopping a bacterial infection is to provide food for what are, basically, other bacterial infections. Antibiotic/probiotic is a prescription for dichotomy, and it means we managed to combine gut microbiomes with a dichotomy. And you didn’t think we could do it.
 

The earphone of hearing aids

It’s estimated that up to 75% of people who need hearing aids don’t wear them. Why? Well, there’s the social stigma about not wanting to appear too old, and then there’s the cost factor.

Antoni Shkraba/Pexels

Is there a cheaper, less stigmatizing option to amplify hearing? The answer, according to otolaryngologist Yen-fu Cheng, MD, of Taipei Veterans General Hospital and associates, is wireless earphones. AirPods, if you want to be brand specific.

Airpods can be on the more expensive side – running about $129 for AirPods 2 and $249 for AirPods Pro – but when compared with premium hearing aids ($10,000), or even basic aids (about $1,500), the Apple products come off inexpensive after all.

The team tested the premium and basic hearing aids against the AirPods 2 and the AirPod Pro using Apple’s Live Listen feature, which helps amplify sound through the company’s wireless earphones and iPhones and was initially designed to assist people with normal hearing in situations such as birdwatching.

The AirPods Pro worked just as well as the basic hearing aid but not quite as well as the premium hearing aid in a quiet setting, while the AirPods 2 performed the worst. When tested in a noisy setting, the AirPods Pro was pretty comparable to the premium hearing aid, as long as the noise came from a lateral direction. Neither of the AirPod models did as well as the hearing aids with head-on noises.

Wireless earbuds may not be the perfect solution from a clinical standpoint, but they’re a good start for people who don’t have access to hearing aids, Dr. Cheng noted.

So who says headphones damage your hearing? They might actually help.
 

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the computer my soul to keep

Radiation is the boring hazard of space travel. No one dies in a space horror movie because they’ve been slowly exposed to too much cosmic radiation. It’s always “thrown out the airlock” this and “eaten by a xenomorph” that.

Michael Chiara/Unsplash

Radiation, however, is not something that can be ignored, but it turns out that a potential solution is another science fiction staple: artificial hibernation. Generally in sci-fi, hibernation is a plot convenience to get people from point A to point B in a ship that doesn’t break the laws of physics. Here on Earth, though, it is well known that animals naturally entering a state of torpor during hibernation gain significant resistance to radiation.

The problem, of course, is that humans don’t hibernate, and no matter how hard people who work 100-hour weeks for Elon Musk try, sleeping for months on end is simply something we can’t do. However, a new study shows that it’s possible to induce this torpor state in animals that don’t naturally hibernate. By injecting rats with adenosine 5’-monophosphate monohydrate and keeping them in a room held at 16° C, an international team of scientists successfully induced a synthetic torpor state.

That’s not all they did: The scientists also exposed the hibernating rats to a large dose of radiation approximating that found in deep space. Which isn’t something we’d like to explain to our significant other when we got home from work. “So how was your day?” “Oh, I irradiated a bunch of sleeping rats. … Don’t worry they’re fine!” Which they were. Thanks to the hypoxic and hypothermic state, the tissue was spared damage from the high-energy ion radiation.

Obviously, there’s a big difference between a rat and a human and a lot of work to be done, but the study does show that artificial hibernation is possible. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to fall asleep and wake up light-years away under an alien sky, and we won’t be horrifically mutated or riddled with cancer. If, however, you find yourself in hibernation on your way to Jupiter (or Saturn) to investigate a mysterious black monolith, we suggest sleeping with one eye open and gripping your pillow tight.

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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