Infectious Disease Practitioner

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ain’t gastroenteritis grand?

The Grand Canyon is perhaps America’s greatest natural wonder. The mile-deep gorge of epic proportions, carved over eons by the Colorado River, elicits superlatives of the highest order from those seeing it for the first time. In the past few months, though, visitors to the Grand Canyon have been experiencing a rather more unpleasant sort of reaction: Involuntary bowel evacuation.

Since April, more than 150 river rafters and backcountry campers have fallen ill with bouts of acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by norovirus. Hey, a viral outbreak and our old friend SARS-CoV-2 isn’t involved! Hopefully it won’t get jealous. Whatever the culprit is, however, it got everywhere, as clusters of illness have popped up in unconnected parts of the park and some hikers have been restricted to a smaller portion of the park to avoid further disease spread. The majority of cases occurred in May, so it’s hoped that the outbreak is dying down, but the park remains on alert.

Jon Sullivan/Pixnio

Now, acute gastroenteritis is certainly an unpleasant disease, but it isn’t typically a life-threatening one. There are, however, a couple of unique factors complicating this outbreak. For one, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona (duh), which can get rather hot in the summer months. Expelling waste from both ends becomes rather more dangerous when the thermometer reads over a hundred degrees, and there have been reports of multiple helicopter rescues.

That’s pretty bad, but in a way, they’re the lucky ones. How can we explain this … see, when you visit the Grand Canyon, you’re expected to follow the general rules of Leave No Trace. That means several things, but essentially, if you bring it in, you have to bring it out. Yes, that includes the various consequences of an acute gastroenteritis attack.

Forget spooky campfire stories and hungry wildlife lurking in the night, because true horror is scraping your friend’s diarrhea off the walls of the Grand Canyon into a plastic bag and stuffing it into your backpack. Probably not the sublime one-on-one Grand Canyon experience that people are expecting.
 

Give us a pee! ... for stem cell retrieval

Getting cells for regenerative stem cell treatment has traditionally been painful and difficult – usually they are retrieved by surgical means from bone marrow or fat tissue – but there may be an easier way.

Just pee in a cup.

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

Apparently, human urine contains stem cells with the potential to be used for regenerative effects. The magic ingredient? The enzyme telomerase, which “is essential for the self-renewal and potential of different types of stem cells” and is related to longevity, according to researchers at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

They looked into how regenerative telomerase activity is for various capabilities beyond chromosomal stability, and whether these stem cells can become other kinds of cells for optimal tissue repair. Turns out they could, acting as a “distinct subpopulation” that has the ability not only to grow cells but also to morph into other cells, they said in a written statement.

Safety is also an issue. “Being able to use a patient’s own stem cells for therapy is considered advantageous because they do not induce immune responses or rejection,” said Anthony Atala, MD, a coauthor of the study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

So less risk, easier retrieval, and great regenerative results. If this takes off, the other methods of retrieval could get flushed down the toilet.
 

Politicians playing the long game, literally

Before we get started with actual information, here’s a joke about politicians:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100? Your Honor.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Senator.

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt, so why do people do it? Is it for the prestige? Seems like everyone hates politicians, so it’s probably not that. Is it their selfless concern for the well-being of others? Probably not that either. Is it for the money? Most members of Congress have more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver, but we’re going to pass on that one as well.

Phi Nguyen/House of Representatives

Once again, science gives us the real answer: Longevity. Politicians live longer than the rest of us, and that longevity gap is getting wider.

Investigators looked at data from 11 industrialized countries, some of it going back to 1817, and found that politicians in the United States can expect to live about 7 years longer than the national average. The difference is around 3 years in Switzerland, 4.5 years in Germany, and 6 years in France.

“For almost all countries, politicians had similar rates of mortality to the general population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, differences in mortality rates widened significantly across all countries, so that politicians had an increasing survival advantage over the general population,” they said in a written statement.

Income inequality could be a factor, but the longevity gains made by politicians, which started before the 1940s, predate the rise of their earnings relative to the rest of the population, which didn’t really get going until the 1980s, the investigators noted.

Whatever the reason, we have this closing thought regarding our long-lived lawmakers: What’s the difference between a politician and a snail? One is a slimy pest that leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.
 

Land of the free, home of obesity

In the United States, it seems, people are becoming more comfortable with obesity. TikTok and Instagram trends often try to show the world that all sizes are beautiful. There’s also the growing popularity of the dad bod.

PxHere

America, it has been said, is the land of the free. We love our freedom, and we value our individualism. If an obese man orders three meals from McDonald’s just for himself, no one is going to stop him. Many Americans also have more access to the food they want at any given time, even while they are moving around a lot less because of their sedentary lifestyles.

According to a recent study cited by the New York Post, however, America is not the only country battling obesity. Egypt and Mexico, for example, also have men with higher BMIs who cherish their individualism and the right to eat what they want, Plamen Akaliyski, PhD, of University Carlos III of Madrid, and associates, said in Social Science & Medicine.

Women are not as likely to think the same way. “Men in particular think, ‘I’m an individual, don’t tell me what to do. I’m going to eat what I want,’ ” bariatric surgeon George A. Fielding, MD, said in the Post article. Dr. Fielding also noted that women are three times more likely than men to seek bariatric surgery.

Dr. Akaliyski and associates found that Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea – countries that value thrift, discipline, self control, and delaying gratification – have lower rates of obesity.

So yes, we can go to the drive through of a fast food restaurant whenever we want and order whatever we want, but can doesn’t always mean should.

Ain’t gastroenteritis grand?

The Grand Canyon is perhaps America’s greatest natural wonder. The mile-deep gorge of epic proportions, carved over eons by the Colorado River, elicits superlatives of the highest order from those seeing it for the first time. In the past few months, though, visitors to the Grand Canyon have been experiencing a rather more unpleasant sort of reaction: Involuntary bowel evacuation.

Since April, more than 150 river rafters and backcountry campers have fallen ill with bouts of acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by norovirus. Hey, a viral outbreak and our old friend SARS-CoV-2 isn’t involved! Hopefully it won’t get jealous. Whatever the culprit is, however, it got everywhere, as clusters of illness have popped up in unconnected parts of the park and some hikers have been restricted to a smaller portion of the park to avoid further disease spread. The majority of cases occurred in May, so it’s hoped that the outbreak is dying down, but the park remains on alert.

Jon Sullivan/Pixnio

Now, acute gastroenteritis is certainly an unpleasant disease, but it isn’t typically a life-threatening one. There are, however, a couple of unique factors complicating this outbreak. For one, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona (duh), which can get rather hot in the summer months. Expelling waste from both ends becomes rather more dangerous when the thermometer reads over a hundred degrees, and there have been reports of multiple helicopter rescues.

That’s pretty bad, but in a way, they’re the lucky ones. How can we explain this … see, when you visit the Grand Canyon, you’re expected to follow the general rules of Leave No Trace. That means several things, but essentially, if you bring it in, you have to bring it out. Yes, that includes the various consequences of an acute gastroenteritis attack.

Forget spooky campfire stories and hungry wildlife lurking in the night, because true horror is scraping your friend’s diarrhea off the walls of the Grand Canyon into a plastic bag and stuffing it into your backpack. Probably not the sublime one-on-one Grand Canyon experience that people are expecting.
 

Give us a pee! ... for stem cell retrieval

Getting cells for regenerative stem cell treatment has traditionally been painful and difficult – usually they are retrieved by surgical means from bone marrow or fat tissue – but there may be an easier way.

Just pee in a cup.

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

Apparently, human urine contains stem cells with the potential to be used for regenerative effects. The magic ingredient? The enzyme telomerase, which “is essential for the self-renewal and potential of different types of stem cells” and is related to longevity, according to researchers at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

They looked into how regenerative telomerase activity is for various capabilities beyond chromosomal stability, and whether these stem cells can become other kinds of cells for optimal tissue repair. Turns out they could, acting as a “distinct subpopulation” that has the ability not only to grow cells but also to morph into other cells, they said in a written statement.

Safety is also an issue. “Being able to use a patient’s own stem cells for therapy is considered advantageous because they do not induce immune responses or rejection,” said Anthony Atala, MD, a coauthor of the study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

So less risk, easier retrieval, and great regenerative results. If this takes off, the other methods of retrieval could get flushed down the toilet.
 

Politicians playing the long game, literally

Before we get started with actual information, here’s a joke about politicians:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100? Your Honor.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Senator.

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt, so why do people do it? Is it for the prestige? Seems like everyone hates politicians, so it’s probably not that. Is it their selfless concern for the well-being of others? Probably not that either. Is it for the money? Most members of Congress have more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver, but we’re going to pass on that one as well.

Phi Nguyen/House of Representatives

Once again, science gives us the real answer: Longevity. Politicians live longer than the rest of us, and that longevity gap is getting wider.

Investigators looked at data from 11 industrialized countries, some of it going back to 1817, and found that politicians in the United States can expect to live about 7 years longer than the national average. The difference is around 3 years in Switzerland, 4.5 years in Germany, and 6 years in France.

“For almost all countries, politicians had similar rates of mortality to the general population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, differences in mortality rates widened significantly across all countries, so that politicians had an increasing survival advantage over the general population,” they said in a written statement.

Income inequality could be a factor, but the longevity gains made by politicians, which started before the 1940s, predate the rise of their earnings relative to the rest of the population, which didn’t really get going until the 1980s, the investigators noted.

Whatever the reason, we have this closing thought regarding our long-lived lawmakers: What’s the difference between a politician and a snail? One is a slimy pest that leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.
 

Land of the free, home of obesity

In the United States, it seems, people are becoming more comfortable with obesity. TikTok and Instagram trends often try to show the world that all sizes are beautiful. There’s also the growing popularity of the dad bod.

PxHere

America, it has been said, is the land of the free. We love our freedom, and we value our individualism. If an obese man orders three meals from McDonald’s just for himself, no one is going to stop him. Many Americans also have more access to the food they want at any given time, even while they are moving around a lot less because of their sedentary lifestyles.

According to a recent study cited by the New York Post, however, America is not the only country battling obesity. Egypt and Mexico, for example, also have men with higher BMIs who cherish their individualism and the right to eat what they want, Plamen Akaliyski, PhD, of University Carlos III of Madrid, and associates, said in Social Science & Medicine.

Women are not as likely to think the same way. “Men in particular think, ‘I’m an individual, don’t tell me what to do. I’m going to eat what I want,’ ” bariatric surgeon George A. Fielding, MD, said in the Post article. Dr. Fielding also noted that women are three times more likely than men to seek bariatric surgery.

Dr. Akaliyski and associates found that Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea – countries that value thrift, discipline, self control, and delaying gratification – have lower rates of obesity.

So yes, we can go to the drive through of a fast food restaurant whenever we want and order whatever we want, but can doesn’t always mean should.

Ain’t gastroenteritis grand?

The Grand Canyon is perhaps America’s greatest natural wonder. The mile-deep gorge of epic proportions, carved over eons by the Colorado River, elicits superlatives of the highest order from those seeing it for the first time. In the past few months, though, visitors to the Grand Canyon have been experiencing a rather more unpleasant sort of reaction: Involuntary bowel evacuation.

Since April, more than 150 river rafters and backcountry campers have fallen ill with bouts of acute gastroenteritis, likely caused by norovirus. Hey, a viral outbreak and our old friend SARS-CoV-2 isn’t involved! Hopefully it won’t get jealous. Whatever the culprit is, however, it got everywhere, as clusters of illness have popped up in unconnected parts of the park and some hikers have been restricted to a smaller portion of the park to avoid further disease spread. The majority of cases occurred in May, so it’s hoped that the outbreak is dying down, but the park remains on alert.

Jon Sullivan/Pixnio

Now, acute gastroenteritis is certainly an unpleasant disease, but it isn’t typically a life-threatening one. There are, however, a couple of unique factors complicating this outbreak. For one, the Grand Canyon is in Arizona (duh), which can get rather hot in the summer months. Expelling waste from both ends becomes rather more dangerous when the thermometer reads over a hundred degrees, and there have been reports of multiple helicopter rescues.

That’s pretty bad, but in a way, they’re the lucky ones. How can we explain this … see, when you visit the Grand Canyon, you’re expected to follow the general rules of Leave No Trace. That means several things, but essentially, if you bring it in, you have to bring it out. Yes, that includes the various consequences of an acute gastroenteritis attack.

Forget spooky campfire stories and hungry wildlife lurking in the night, because true horror is scraping your friend’s diarrhea off the walls of the Grand Canyon into a plastic bag and stuffing it into your backpack. Probably not the sublime one-on-one Grand Canyon experience that people are expecting.
 

Give us a pee! ... for stem cell retrieval

Getting cells for regenerative stem cell treatment has traditionally been painful and difficult – usually they are retrieved by surgical means from bone marrow or fat tissue – but there may be an easier way.

Just pee in a cup.

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

Apparently, human urine contains stem cells with the potential to be used for regenerative effects. The magic ingredient? The enzyme telomerase, which “is essential for the self-renewal and potential of different types of stem cells” and is related to longevity, according to researchers at Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

They looked into how regenerative telomerase activity is for various capabilities beyond chromosomal stability, and whether these stem cells can become other kinds of cells for optimal tissue repair. Turns out they could, acting as a “distinct subpopulation” that has the ability not only to grow cells but also to morph into other cells, they said in a written statement.

Safety is also an issue. “Being able to use a patient’s own stem cells for therapy is considered advantageous because they do not induce immune responses or rejection,” said Anthony Atala, MD, a coauthor of the study published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.

So less risk, easier retrieval, and great regenerative results. If this takes off, the other methods of retrieval could get flushed down the toilet.
 

Politicians playing the long game, literally

Before we get started with actual information, here’s a joke about politicians:

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100? Your Honor.

What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50? Senator.

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt, so why do people do it? Is it for the prestige? Seems like everyone hates politicians, so it’s probably not that. Is it their selfless concern for the well-being of others? Probably not that either. Is it for the money? Most members of Congress have more corporate sponsors than a NASCAR driver, but we’re going to pass on that one as well.

Phi Nguyen/House of Representatives

Once again, science gives us the real answer: Longevity. Politicians live longer than the rest of us, and that longevity gap is getting wider.

Investigators looked at data from 11 industrialized countries, some of it going back to 1817, and found that politicians in the United States can expect to live about 7 years longer than the national average. The difference is around 3 years in Switzerland, 4.5 years in Germany, and 6 years in France.

“For almost all countries, politicians had similar rates of mortality to the general population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the 20th century, differences in mortality rates widened significantly across all countries, so that politicians had an increasing survival advantage over the general population,” they said in a written statement.

Income inequality could be a factor, but the longevity gains made by politicians, which started before the 1940s, predate the rise of their earnings relative to the rest of the population, which didn’t really get going until the 1980s, the investigators noted.

Whatever the reason, we have this closing thought regarding our long-lived lawmakers: What’s the difference between a politician and a snail? One is a slimy pest that leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.
 

Land of the free, home of obesity

In the United States, it seems, people are becoming more comfortable with obesity. TikTok and Instagram trends often try to show the world that all sizes are beautiful. There’s also the growing popularity of the dad bod.

PxHere

America, it has been said, is the land of the free. We love our freedom, and we value our individualism. If an obese man orders three meals from McDonald’s just for himself, no one is going to stop him. Many Americans also have more access to the food they want at any given time, even while they are moving around a lot less because of their sedentary lifestyles.

According to a recent study cited by the New York Post, however, America is not the only country battling obesity. Egypt and Mexico, for example, also have men with higher BMIs who cherish their individualism and the right to eat what they want, Plamen Akaliyski, PhD, of University Carlos III of Madrid, and associates, said in Social Science & Medicine.

Women are not as likely to think the same way. “Men in particular think, ‘I’m an individual, don’t tell me what to do. I’m going to eat what I want,’ ” bariatric surgeon George A. Fielding, MD, said in the Post article. Dr. Fielding also noted that women are three times more likely than men to seek bariatric surgery.

Dr. Akaliyski and associates found that Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea – countries that value thrift, discipline, self control, and delaying gratification – have lower rates of obesity.

So yes, we can go to the drive through of a fast food restaurant whenever we want and order whatever we want, but can doesn’t always mean should.

A new study provides more evidence that influenza vaccination may help protect older adults against Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.

“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.

The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.

The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

40% lower risk

Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.

However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.

Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.

The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.

During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.

The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
 

Mechanism unclear

“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.

“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.

It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.

“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
 

Alzheimer’s expert weighs in

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.

“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.

“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that influenza vaccination may help protect older adults against Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.

“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.

The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.

The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

40% lower risk

Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.

However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.

Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.

The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.

During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.

The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
 

Mechanism unclear

“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.

“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.

It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.

“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
 

Alzheimer’s expert weighs in

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.

“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.

“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that influenza vaccination may help protect older adults against Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.

“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.

The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.

The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

40% lower risk

Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.

However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.

Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.

The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.

During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.

The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
 

Mechanism unclear

“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.

“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.

It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.

“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
 

Alzheimer’s expert weighs in

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.

“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.

“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.

Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.

“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”

Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.

The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.

“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.

Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.

Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
 

Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported

Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.

“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”

Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.

“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.

The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”

Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.

She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”

She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.

She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.

Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
 

Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is

Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.

Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.

“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.

Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.

“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”

Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.

The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.

“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.

Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.

Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
 

Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported

Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.

“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”

Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.

“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.

The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”

Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.

She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”

She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.

She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.

Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
 

Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is

Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.

Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.

“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Case numbers of acute hepatitis in children show “a declining trajectory,” and COVID-19 and adenovirus remain the most likely, but as yet unproven, causative agents, said experts in an update at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Philippa Easterbrook, MD, medical expert at the World Health Organization Global HIV, Hepatitis, and STI Programme, shared the latest case numbers and working hypotheses of possible causative agents in the outbreak of acute hepatitis among children in Europe and beyond.

Global data across the five WHO regions show there were 244 cases in the past month, bringing the total to 894 probable cases reported since October 2021 from 33 countries.

“It’s important to remember that this includes new cases, as well as retrospectively identified cases,” Dr.Easterbrook said. “Over half (52%) are from the European region, while 262 cases (30% of the global total) are from the United Kingdom.”

Data from Europe and the United States show a declining trajectory of reports of new cases. “This is a positive development,” she said.

The second highest reporting region is the Americas, she said, with 368 cases total, 290 cases of which come from the United States, accounting for 35% of the global total.

“Together the United Kingdom and the United States make up 65% of the global total,” she said.

Dr. Easterbrook added that 17 of the 33 reporting countries had more than five cases. Most cases (75%) are in young children under 5 years of age.

Serious cases are relatively few, but 44 (5%) children have required liver transplantation. Data from the European region show that 30% have required intensive care at some point during their hospitalization. There have been 18 (2%) reported deaths.
 

Possible post-COVID phenomenon, adenovirus most commonly reported

Dr. Easterbrook acknowledged the emerging hypothesis of a post-COVID phenomenon.

“Is this a variant of the rare but recognized multisystem inflammatory syndrome condition in children that’s been reported, often 1-2 months after COVID, causing widespread organ damage?” But she pointed out that the reported COVID cases with hepatitis “don’t seem to fit these features.”

Adenovirus remains the most commonly detected virus in acute hepatitis in children, found in 53% of cases overall, she said. The adenovirus detection rate is higher in the United Kingdom, at 68%.

“There are quite high rates of detection, but they’re not in all cases. There does seem to be a high rate of detection in the younger age groups and in those who are developing severe disease, so perhaps there is some link to severity,” Dr. Easterbrook said.

The working hypotheses continue to favor adenovirus together with past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection, as proposed early in the outbreak, she said. “These either work independently or work together as cofactors in some way to result in hepatitis. And there has been some clear progress on this. WHO is bringing together the data from different countries on some of these working hypotheses.”

Dr. Easterbrook highlighted the importance of procuring global data, especially given that two countries are reporting the majority of cases and in high numbers. “It’s a mixed picture with different rates of adenovirus detection and of COVID,” she said. “We need good-quality data collected in a standardized way.” WHO is requesting that countries provide these data.

She also highlighted the need for good in-depth studies, citing the UK Health Security Agency as an example of this. “There’s only a few countries that have the capacity or the patient numbers to look at this in detail, for example, the U.K. and the UKHSA.”

She noted that the UKHSA had laid out a comprehensive, systematic set of further investigations. For example, a case-control study is trying to establish whether there is a difference in the rate of adenovirus detection in children with hepatitis compared with other hospitalized children at the same time. “This aims to really tease out whether adenovirus is a cause or just a bystander,” she said.

She added that there were also genetic studies investigating whether genes were predisposing some children to develop a more severe form of disease. Other studies are evaluating the immune response of the patients.

Dr. Easterbrook added that the WHO will soon launch a global survey asking whether the reports of acute hepatitis are greater than the expected background rate for cases of hepatitis of unknown etiology.
 

Acute hepatitis is not new, but high caseload is

Also speaking at the ILC special briefing was Maria Buti, MD, PhD, policy and public health chair for the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and chief of the internal medicine and hepatology department at Hospital General Universitari Valle Hebron in Barcelona.

Dr. Buti drew attention to the fact that severe acute hepatitis of unknown etiology in children is not new.

“We have cases of acute hepatitis that even needed liver transplantation some years ago, and every year in our clinics we see these type of patients,” Dr. Buti remarked. What is really new, she added, is the amount of cases, particularly in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Buti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has been associated with a threefold increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and a doubling of Parkinson’s disease risk, a new study suggests. However, the research also showed there was no excess risk of these neurologic disorders following COVID than other respiratory infections such as influenza or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Considering these results, study investigator Pardis Zarifkar, MD, department of neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, urged doctors to “keep an eye on” COVID patients and use “a critical mindset” if these patients present with neurologic issues.

“They should consider whether the patient’s condition is something new or if there were already signs and symptoms before they had COVID-19,” she said.

The findings were presented at the 2022 congress of the European Academy of Neurology and published online in Frontiers in Neurology.

‘Surprising’ increased risk

Previous research shows more than 80% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have neurologic symptoms including anosmia, dysgeusia, headache, dizziness, memory and concentration difficulties, fatigue, and irritability.

However, it’s unclear whether COVID-19 affects the risk for specific neurologic diseases and if so, whether this association differs from other respiratory infections.

From electronic health records covering about half the Danish population, researchers identified adults who were tested for COVID-19 or diagnosed with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from February 2020 to November 2021. They also flagged individuals with influenza in the corresponding prepandemic period (February 2018–November 2019).

Dr. Zarifkar noted influenza A or B and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia are two of the most common respiratory tract infections.

The investigators tracked neurologic diseases up to 12 months after a positive test. They looked at two neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, as well as cerebrovascular disorders including ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

The study included 43,262 individuals with a positive COVID test without a history of influenza A/B in the past year and 876,356 without a positive COVID test. It also included 1,474 individuals with community-acquired pneumonia without a history of COVID and 8,102 with influenza A or B.

“We wanted to investigate whether COVID-19 is really that much worse than all these other common respiratory infections that we have had for ages and see every single year,” said Dr. Zarifkar.

After 12 months, the relative risk for Alzheimer’s disease was 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.1) in the COVID-positive group versus the COVID-negative group. The risks were greater among inpatients versus outpatients.

These results were rather unexpected, said Dr. Zarifkar. “I would have expected a small increase, but the extent of the increase was quite surprising.”

However, there was no difference when comparing the COVID-19 group with the influenza or bacterial pneumonia groups, which Dr. Zarifkar said was “very reassuring.”

The findings were similar for Parkinson’s disease, where there was a 2.2-fold increased risk of a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis within the first 12 months in COVID-positive individuals, compared with COVID-negative people (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4). Again, there was no excess risk, compared with influenza or bacterial pneumonia.

Potential mechanisms

Dr. Zarifkar believes a “constellation” of factors may explain higher risks of these diagnoses in COVID patients. Part of it could be a result of neuroinflammation, which can lead to a toxic accumulation of beta amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease and alpha-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease.

“It can accelerate a neurodegenerative disease already in the making,” she said. But perhaps the biggest driver of differences between the groups is the “scientific focus” on COVID patients. “In Denmark, almost everyone who has had COVID-19, especially severe COVID-19, is offered some sort of cognitive testing, and if you hand out MoCAs [Montreal Cognitive Assessments] which is the cognitive test we use, to almost everyone you’re meeting, you’re going to catch these disorders earlier than you might have otherwise.”

As for cerebrovascular disorders, the study showed an increased risk of ischemic stroke in COVID-positive versus COVID-negative subjects at 12 months (RR, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.2).

The relatively strong inflammatory response associated with COVID-19, which may create a hypercoagulable state, may help explain the increased ischemic stroke risk in COVID patients, said Dr. Zarifkar.

The study did not show an increased risk for subarachnoid hemorrhage in COVID-positive, compared with COVID-negative, subjects but did reveal an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage after 12 months (RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8-12.9).

This could be explained by COVID-positive subjects having a higher risk for ischemic stroke and receiving thrombolysis that may increase risk for bleeding in the brain. However, an analysis accounting for medication use found differences in thrombolysis rates didn’t change the result, said Dr. Zarifkar.

It’s also possible that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and mechanical ventilation – interventions more frequently used in COVID-19 patients – may increase the risk for bleeding in brain, she added.

The researchers did not find an increased risk for multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or narcolepsy in COVID patients. However, Dr. Zarifkar noted that it can take years to detect an association with autoimmune disorders.

The investigators did not stratify risk by disease severity, although this would be an important step, she said. “The threshold of being admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 has been much lower than for influenza or bacterial pneumonia where you’re typically quite ill before you’re admitted, so this might actually dilute the findings and underestimate our findings.”

A national, registry-based study that includes the entire Danish population and additional information on vaccination status, virus variants, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities is needed, said Dr. Zarifkar.

The study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Zarifkar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has been associated with a threefold increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and a doubling of Parkinson’s disease risk, a new study suggests. However, the research also showed there was no excess risk of these neurologic disorders following COVID than other respiratory infections such as influenza or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Considering these results, study investigator Pardis Zarifkar, MD, department of neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, urged doctors to “keep an eye on” COVID patients and use “a critical mindset” if these patients present with neurologic issues.

“They should consider whether the patient’s condition is something new or if there were already signs and symptoms before they had COVID-19,” she said.

The findings were presented at the 2022 congress of the European Academy of Neurology and published online in Frontiers in Neurology.

‘Surprising’ increased risk

Previous research shows more than 80% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have neurologic symptoms including anosmia, dysgeusia, headache, dizziness, memory and concentration difficulties, fatigue, and irritability.

However, it’s unclear whether COVID-19 affects the risk for specific neurologic diseases and if so, whether this association differs from other respiratory infections.

From electronic health records covering about half the Danish population, researchers identified adults who were tested for COVID-19 or diagnosed with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from February 2020 to November 2021. They also flagged individuals with influenza in the corresponding prepandemic period (February 2018–November 2019).

Dr. Zarifkar noted influenza A or B and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia are two of the most common respiratory tract infections.

The investigators tracked neurologic diseases up to 12 months after a positive test. They looked at two neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, as well as cerebrovascular disorders including ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

The study included 43,262 individuals with a positive COVID test without a history of influenza A/B in the past year and 876,356 without a positive COVID test. It also included 1,474 individuals with community-acquired pneumonia without a history of COVID and 8,102 with influenza A or B.

“We wanted to investigate whether COVID-19 is really that much worse than all these other common respiratory infections that we have had for ages and see every single year,” said Dr. Zarifkar.

After 12 months, the relative risk for Alzheimer’s disease was 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.1) in the COVID-positive group versus the COVID-negative group. The risks were greater among inpatients versus outpatients.

These results were rather unexpected, said Dr. Zarifkar. “I would have expected a small increase, but the extent of the increase was quite surprising.”

However, there was no difference when comparing the COVID-19 group with the influenza or bacterial pneumonia groups, which Dr. Zarifkar said was “very reassuring.”

The findings were similar for Parkinson’s disease, where there was a 2.2-fold increased risk of a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis within the first 12 months in COVID-positive individuals, compared with COVID-negative people (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4). Again, there was no excess risk, compared with influenza or bacterial pneumonia.

Potential mechanisms

Dr. Zarifkar believes a “constellation” of factors may explain higher risks of these diagnoses in COVID patients. Part of it could be a result of neuroinflammation, which can lead to a toxic accumulation of beta amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease and alpha-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease.

“It can accelerate a neurodegenerative disease already in the making,” she said. But perhaps the biggest driver of differences between the groups is the “scientific focus” on COVID patients. “In Denmark, almost everyone who has had COVID-19, especially severe COVID-19, is offered some sort of cognitive testing, and if you hand out MoCAs [Montreal Cognitive Assessments] which is the cognitive test we use, to almost everyone you’re meeting, you’re going to catch these disorders earlier than you might have otherwise.”

As for cerebrovascular disorders, the study showed an increased risk of ischemic stroke in COVID-positive versus COVID-negative subjects at 12 months (RR, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.2).

The relatively strong inflammatory response associated with COVID-19, which may create a hypercoagulable state, may help explain the increased ischemic stroke risk in COVID patients, said Dr. Zarifkar.

The study did not show an increased risk for subarachnoid hemorrhage in COVID-positive, compared with COVID-negative, subjects but did reveal an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage after 12 months (RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8-12.9).

This could be explained by COVID-positive subjects having a higher risk for ischemic stroke and receiving thrombolysis that may increase risk for bleeding in the brain. However, an analysis accounting for medication use found differences in thrombolysis rates didn’t change the result, said Dr. Zarifkar.

It’s also possible that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and mechanical ventilation – interventions more frequently used in COVID-19 patients – may increase the risk for bleeding in brain, she added.

The researchers did not find an increased risk for multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or narcolepsy in COVID patients. However, Dr. Zarifkar noted that it can take years to detect an association with autoimmune disorders.

The investigators did not stratify risk by disease severity, although this would be an important step, she said. “The threshold of being admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 has been much lower than for influenza or bacterial pneumonia where you’re typically quite ill before you’re admitted, so this might actually dilute the findings and underestimate our findings.”

A national, registry-based study that includes the entire Danish population and additional information on vaccination status, virus variants, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities is needed, said Dr. Zarifkar.

The study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Zarifkar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has been associated with a threefold increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease and a doubling of Parkinson’s disease risk, a new study suggests. However, the research also showed there was no excess risk of these neurologic disorders following COVID than other respiratory infections such as influenza or community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Considering these results, study investigator Pardis Zarifkar, MD, department of neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, urged doctors to “keep an eye on” COVID patients and use “a critical mindset” if these patients present with neurologic issues.

“They should consider whether the patient’s condition is something new or if there were already signs and symptoms before they had COVID-19,” she said.

The findings were presented at the 2022 congress of the European Academy of Neurology and published online in Frontiers in Neurology.

‘Surprising’ increased risk

Previous research shows more than 80% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have neurologic symptoms including anosmia, dysgeusia, headache, dizziness, memory and concentration difficulties, fatigue, and irritability.

However, it’s unclear whether COVID-19 affects the risk for specific neurologic diseases and if so, whether this association differs from other respiratory infections.

From electronic health records covering about half the Danish population, researchers identified adults who were tested for COVID-19 or diagnosed with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia from February 2020 to November 2021. They also flagged individuals with influenza in the corresponding prepandemic period (February 2018–November 2019).

Dr. Zarifkar noted influenza A or B and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia are two of the most common respiratory tract infections.

The investigators tracked neurologic diseases up to 12 months after a positive test. They looked at two neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, as well as cerebrovascular disorders including ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

The study included 43,262 individuals with a positive COVID test without a history of influenza A/B in the past year and 876,356 without a positive COVID test. It also included 1,474 individuals with community-acquired pneumonia without a history of COVID and 8,102 with influenza A or B.

“We wanted to investigate whether COVID-19 is really that much worse than all these other common respiratory infections that we have had for ages and see every single year,” said Dr. Zarifkar.

After 12 months, the relative risk for Alzheimer’s disease was 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.1) in the COVID-positive group versus the COVID-negative group. The risks were greater among inpatients versus outpatients.

These results were rather unexpected, said Dr. Zarifkar. “I would have expected a small increase, but the extent of the increase was quite surprising.”

However, there was no difference when comparing the COVID-19 group with the influenza or bacterial pneumonia groups, which Dr. Zarifkar said was “very reassuring.”

The findings were similar for Parkinson’s disease, where there was a 2.2-fold increased risk of a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis within the first 12 months in COVID-positive individuals, compared with COVID-negative people (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4). Again, there was no excess risk, compared with influenza or bacterial pneumonia.

Potential mechanisms

Dr. Zarifkar believes a “constellation” of factors may explain higher risks of these diagnoses in COVID patients. Part of it could be a result of neuroinflammation, which can lead to a toxic accumulation of beta amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease and alpha-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease.

“It can accelerate a neurodegenerative disease already in the making,” she said. But perhaps the biggest driver of differences between the groups is the “scientific focus” on COVID patients. “In Denmark, almost everyone who has had COVID-19, especially severe COVID-19, is offered some sort of cognitive testing, and if you hand out MoCAs [Montreal Cognitive Assessments] which is the cognitive test we use, to almost everyone you’re meeting, you’re going to catch these disorders earlier than you might have otherwise.”

As for cerebrovascular disorders, the study showed an increased risk of ischemic stroke in COVID-positive versus COVID-negative subjects at 12 months (RR, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.2).

The relatively strong inflammatory response associated with COVID-19, which may create a hypercoagulable state, may help explain the increased ischemic stroke risk in COVID patients, said Dr. Zarifkar.

The study did not show an increased risk for subarachnoid hemorrhage in COVID-positive, compared with COVID-negative, subjects but did reveal an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage after 12 months (RR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8-12.9).

This could be explained by COVID-positive subjects having a higher risk for ischemic stroke and receiving thrombolysis that may increase risk for bleeding in the brain. However, an analysis accounting for medication use found differences in thrombolysis rates didn’t change the result, said Dr. Zarifkar.

It’s also possible that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and mechanical ventilation – interventions more frequently used in COVID-19 patients – may increase the risk for bleeding in brain, she added.

The researchers did not find an increased risk for multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or narcolepsy in COVID patients. However, Dr. Zarifkar noted that it can take years to detect an association with autoimmune disorders.

The investigators did not stratify risk by disease severity, although this would be an important step, she said. “The threshold of being admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 has been much lower than for influenza or bacterial pneumonia where you’re typically quite ill before you’re admitted, so this might actually dilute the findings and underestimate our findings.”

A national, registry-based study that includes the entire Danish population and additional information on vaccination status, virus variants, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities is needed, said Dr. Zarifkar.

The study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Zarifkar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The White House is scaling up its response to the monkeypox outbreak, expanding access to vaccines to more at-risk individuals, officials said in a press call. More than 56,000 doses of the monkeypox vaccine JYNNEOS will be made available immediately, and more than 240,000 doses will be allocated in the coming weeks.

“The administration’s current strategy is focused on containing the outbreak by providing vaccines to those most in need to prevent further spread of monkeypox in the communities most impacted,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said on a June 28 press call. “As additional supply becomes available, we will further expand our efforts making vaccines available to a wider population.”

As of June 28, there were 4,700 detected cases of monkeypox globally in 49 countries. Since the first U.S. case of monkeypox was identified on May 17, there have been 306 confirmed cases across 28 jurisdictions.

Prior to this announcement, vaccination against monkeypox was recommended only for people with known exposures to the virus. Now, the vaccine is available to people who are likely to be exposed to the virus, including:

• People who have had close physical contact with someone diagnosed with monkeypox.
• People with a sexual partner diagnosed with monkeypox.
• Men who have sex with men who have had multiple sex partners in a venue where monkeypox was identified.

The JYNNEOS vaccine is administered in two doses, delivered 28 days apart. People will have maximum immunity 2 weeks after the second dose. People should be vaccinated within 2 weeks of a possible monkeypox exposure, Dr. Walensky said, adding, “The sooner you can get vaccinated after exposure, the better.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will immediately allocate the 56,000 JYNNEOS doses across the country, prioritizing jurisdictions to areas of high transmission. A second vaccine, ACAM2000, can also be requested, but it has a greater risk for serious side effects and is not appropriate for immunocompromised individuals or people with heart disease. In the coming weeks, 240,000 JYNNEOS doses will be made available for second doses as well as first doses “as the vaccine strategy broadens,” said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness and response for HHS. There are currently 800,000 JYNNEOS doses that have been manufactured and approved for release, he said, and awaiting inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, which should be completed in the beginning of July.

At the same time, the administration is focusing on increasing access to testing. Monkeypox testing is now available in 78 state public health labs in 48 states that can collectively conduct 10,000 tests per week. In addition, the administration announced on June 23 that HHS began shipping monkeypox tests to five commercial lab companies to expand testing capacity as well as make testing more accessible.

“We continue to work very closely with the community and with public health partners and clinicians to increase awareness of the monkey pox outbreak and to facilitate adequate capacity and equitable access to testing,” Dr. Walensky said. “I strongly encourage all health care providers to have a high clinical suspicion for monkeypox among their patients. Patients presenting with a suspicious rash should be tested.”

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

The White House is scaling up its response to the monkeypox outbreak, expanding access to vaccines to more at-risk individuals, officials said in a press call. More than 56,000 doses of the monkeypox vaccine JYNNEOS will be made available immediately, and more than 240,000 doses will be allocated in the coming weeks.

“The administration’s current strategy is focused on containing the outbreak by providing vaccines to those most in need to prevent further spread of monkeypox in the communities most impacted,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said on a June 28 press call. “As additional supply becomes available, we will further expand our efforts making vaccines available to a wider population.”

As of June 28, there were 4,700 detected cases of monkeypox globally in 49 countries. Since the first U.S. case of monkeypox was identified on May 17, there have been 306 confirmed cases across 28 jurisdictions.

Prior to this announcement, vaccination against monkeypox was recommended only for people with known exposures to the virus. Now, the vaccine is available to people who are likely to be exposed to the virus, including:

• People who have had close physical contact with someone diagnosed with monkeypox.
• People with a sexual partner diagnosed with monkeypox.
• Men who have sex with men who have had multiple sex partners in a venue where monkeypox was identified.

The JYNNEOS vaccine is administered in two doses, delivered 28 days apart. People will have maximum immunity 2 weeks after the second dose. People should be vaccinated within 2 weeks of a possible monkeypox exposure, Dr. Walensky said, adding, “The sooner you can get vaccinated after exposure, the better.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will immediately allocate the 56,000 JYNNEOS doses across the country, prioritizing jurisdictions to areas of high transmission. A second vaccine, ACAM2000, can also be requested, but it has a greater risk for serious side effects and is not appropriate for immunocompromised individuals or people with heart disease. In the coming weeks, 240,000 JYNNEOS doses will be made available for second doses as well as first doses “as the vaccine strategy broadens,” said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness and response for HHS. There are currently 800,000 JYNNEOS doses that have been manufactured and approved for release, he said, and awaiting inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, which should be completed in the beginning of July.

At the same time, the administration is focusing on increasing access to testing. Monkeypox testing is now available in 78 state public health labs in 48 states that can collectively conduct 10,000 tests per week. In addition, the administration announced on June 23 that HHS began shipping monkeypox tests to five commercial lab companies to expand testing capacity as well as make testing more accessible.

“We continue to work very closely with the community and with public health partners and clinicians to increase awareness of the monkey pox outbreak and to facilitate adequate capacity and equitable access to testing,” Dr. Walensky said. “I strongly encourage all health care providers to have a high clinical suspicion for monkeypox among their patients. Patients presenting with a suspicious rash should be tested.”

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

The White House is scaling up its response to the monkeypox outbreak, expanding access to vaccines to more at-risk individuals, officials said in a press call. More than 56,000 doses of the monkeypox vaccine JYNNEOS will be made available immediately, and more than 240,000 doses will be allocated in the coming weeks.

“The administration’s current strategy is focused on containing the outbreak by providing vaccines to those most in need to prevent further spread of monkeypox in the communities most impacted,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said on a June 28 press call. “As additional supply becomes available, we will further expand our efforts making vaccines available to a wider population.”

As of June 28, there were 4,700 detected cases of monkeypox globally in 49 countries. Since the first U.S. case of monkeypox was identified on May 17, there have been 306 confirmed cases across 28 jurisdictions.

Prior to this announcement, vaccination against monkeypox was recommended only for people with known exposures to the virus. Now, the vaccine is available to people who are likely to be exposed to the virus, including:

• People who have had close physical contact with someone diagnosed with monkeypox.
• People with a sexual partner diagnosed with monkeypox.
• Men who have sex with men who have had multiple sex partners in a venue where monkeypox was identified.

The JYNNEOS vaccine is administered in two doses, delivered 28 days apart. People will have maximum immunity 2 weeks after the second dose. People should be vaccinated within 2 weeks of a possible monkeypox exposure, Dr. Walensky said, adding, “The sooner you can get vaccinated after exposure, the better.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will immediately allocate the 56,000 JYNNEOS doses across the country, prioritizing jurisdictions to areas of high transmission. A second vaccine, ACAM2000, can also be requested, but it has a greater risk for serious side effects and is not appropriate for immunocompromised individuals or people with heart disease. In the coming weeks, 240,000 JYNNEOS doses will be made available for second doses as well as first doses “as the vaccine strategy broadens,” said David Boucher, director of infectious disease preparedness and response for HHS. There are currently 800,000 JYNNEOS doses that have been manufactured and approved for release, he said, and awaiting inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, which should be completed in the beginning of July.

At the same time, the administration is focusing on increasing access to testing. Monkeypox testing is now available in 78 state public health labs in 48 states that can collectively conduct 10,000 tests per week. In addition, the administration announced on June 23 that HHS began shipping monkeypox tests to five commercial lab companies to expand testing capacity as well as make testing more accessible.

“We continue to work very closely with the community and with public health partners and clinicians to increase awareness of the monkey pox outbreak and to facilitate adequate capacity and equitable access to testing,” Dr. Walensky said. “I strongly encourage all health care providers to have a high clinical suspicion for monkeypox among their patients. Patients presenting with a suspicious rash should be tested.”

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

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

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

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

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

A federal advisory panel on June 28 recommended updating COVID-19 booster vaccines in the United States to include an Omicron component, while urging the need for more information on how well these shots work on emerging strains of the virus.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 19-2 in favor of a new formulation – although what that formulation will be is yet to be determined. The FDA often incorporates the views of its advisers into its decisions, although it is not bound to do so.

In this case, though, top FDA staff at the meeting seemed inclined to encourage the development of COVID vaccines modified to keep up with an evolving virus. Two Omicron subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, which first appeared in South Africa in March 2022, have spread to the United States and have begun to increase rapidly in proportion to the virus population, the FDA said in a briefing for the meeting.

New information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the two highly infectious subvariants now make up more than half the number of new COVID cases in the US.
 

Double-duty vaccine

In summarizing the message of the advisory committee, Peter W. Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research, said panelists had lent support to modifying vaccines to protect against both the original, or “ancestral” viral strain, and against Omicron, perhaps emphasizing the newly emerging subvariants.

Dr. Marks emphasized that this is a challenging decision, as no one has a “crystal ball” to forecast how SARS-CoV-2 will evolve.

“We are trying to use every last ounce of what we can from predictive modeling and from the data that we have that’s emerging, to try to get ahead of a virus that has been very crafty,” he said.”It’s pretty darn crafty.”
 

Limited data

Voting “no” were Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of Hofstra/Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

Both Dr. Offit and Dr. Bernstein earlier in the meeting expressed doubts about the evidence gathered to date in favor of a strain change. Dr. Offit had noted that protection seems to persist from the vaccines now available.

“To date, the current prototypical vaccines, the ancestral strain vaccines do protect against serious illness,” he said. “We don’t yet have a variant that is resistant to protection against serious illness.“

Dr. Bernstein said he was “struggling” with the question as well, given the limited data gathered to date about the vaccines and emerging strains of the virus.

Other panelists also expressed reservations, while supporting the concept of altering vaccines to teach the body to fight the emerging strains as well as the original one.

Panelist Wayne Marasco, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who voted yes, noted the difficulties of keeping up with the rapidly evolving virus, saying it’s possible that Omicron strains BA.4 and BA.5 could peak within months. That could be before the vaccines are even distributed – if all goes to plan – in the fall.

“This is a step in the right direction, but we have to reevaluate this as we move forward,” Dr. Marasco said, adding that a good strategy would be to elicit antibody response to bridge more than one variant of the virus.

Even panelists like Dr. Marasco who voted yes stressed the need for further data collection about how vaccines may be adapted to a changing virus. But they also acknowledged a need to give vaccine makers a clear indication of what the medical community expects in terms of changes to these shots.

“With the waning vaccine efficacy and the confluence of risk this fall, we need to make a move sooner rather than later and direct our sponsors in the proper direction,” said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said before the vote.

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

As the coronavirus continues to evolve, Omicron subvariants such as BA.4 and BA.5 are expected to lead to many COVID-19 cases in the coming months.

Researchers recently reported that the subvariants have mutated for better “immune escape,” or the ability to avoid antibodies from vaccination or previous infection.

“That has changed our view for what will happen this summer,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, an epidemiologist who has developed COVID-19 forecasts for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, told The Boston Globe.

Until recently, Dr. Mokdad expected the United States to have a “very good summer” in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through September. The U.S. is reporting about 100,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker by The New York Times, which has remained flat throughout June. Cases will likely decrease this summer, Dr. Mokdad said, though the decline will be slower and smaller than first thought.

As of June 18, BA.4 and BA.5 accounted for about 35% of cases in the United States, according to the latest CDC data, with BA.5 making up 23.5% and BA.4 making up 11.4%. The two subvariants will likely take over BA.2.12.1 as top subvariants in coming weeks.

“I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Dan Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the Globe.

Dr. Barouch said the Omicron subvariants will likely create a summer of “substantial infections” but low rates of hospitalization and death. He published a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found BA.4 and BA.5 are better at escaping antibodies than other coronavirus strains – about three times better than the Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 and 20 times better than the first coronavirus strain.

“What we’re seeing with each subsequent variant is iteratively higher levels of transmissibility and higher levels of antibody immune escape,” he said. “We’re seeing high levels of infection in populations that are highly vaccinated, as well as populations that have a high level of natural immunity to the prior variants.”

At the same time, current antibodies still appear to protect people against the worst outcomes, Dr. Barouch said.

“If people have vaccine immunity or natural immunity, then they have substantial protection against severe disease,” he said.

So far, researchers have found that Omicron subvariants tend to cause less severe disease than other variants, such as Delta. Dr. Mokdad estimated that 80% of Omicron infections don’t show symptoms.

He said there is a “remote possibility” of another wave during the summer, but he expects cases to rise significantly around the beginning of October, when the seasons change, and most people’s immunity will wane. Other things could play into the predictions this summer, he noted, such as coronavirus mutations and new variants.

“Anybody that models this more than a couple of weeks out is basically just using pixie dust,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the newspaper.

“There is no pattern whatsoever developing from a seasonality standpoint. It’s all being driven by the variants,” he said. “We just have to be humble and acknowledge that we don’t know.”

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

As the coronavirus continues to evolve, Omicron subvariants such as BA.4 and BA.5 are expected to lead to many COVID-19 cases in the coming months.

Researchers recently reported that the subvariants have mutated for better “immune escape,” or the ability to avoid antibodies from vaccination or previous infection.

“That has changed our view for what will happen this summer,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, an epidemiologist who has developed COVID-19 forecasts for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, told The Boston Globe.

Until recently, Dr. Mokdad expected the United States to have a “very good summer” in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through September. The U.S. is reporting about 100,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker by The New York Times, which has remained flat throughout June. Cases will likely decrease this summer, Dr. Mokdad said, though the decline will be slower and smaller than first thought.

As of June 18, BA.4 and BA.5 accounted for about 35% of cases in the United States, according to the latest CDC data, with BA.5 making up 23.5% and BA.4 making up 11.4%. The two subvariants will likely take over BA.2.12.1 as top subvariants in coming weeks.

“I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Dan Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the Globe.

Dr. Barouch said the Omicron subvariants will likely create a summer of “substantial infections” but low rates of hospitalization and death. He published a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found BA.4 and BA.5 are better at escaping antibodies than other coronavirus strains – about three times better than the Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 and 20 times better than the first coronavirus strain.

“What we’re seeing with each subsequent variant is iteratively higher levels of transmissibility and higher levels of antibody immune escape,” he said. “We’re seeing high levels of infection in populations that are highly vaccinated, as well as populations that have a high level of natural immunity to the prior variants.”

At the same time, current antibodies still appear to protect people against the worst outcomes, Dr. Barouch said.

“If people have vaccine immunity or natural immunity, then they have substantial protection against severe disease,” he said.

So far, researchers have found that Omicron subvariants tend to cause less severe disease than other variants, such as Delta. Dr. Mokdad estimated that 80% of Omicron infections don’t show symptoms.

He said there is a “remote possibility” of another wave during the summer, but he expects cases to rise significantly around the beginning of October, when the seasons change, and most people’s immunity will wane. Other things could play into the predictions this summer, he noted, such as coronavirus mutations and new variants.

“Anybody that models this more than a couple of weeks out is basically just using pixie dust,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the newspaper.

“There is no pattern whatsoever developing from a seasonality standpoint. It’s all being driven by the variants,” he said. “We just have to be humble and acknowledge that we don’t know.”

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

As the coronavirus continues to evolve, Omicron subvariants such as BA.4 and BA.5 are expected to lead to many COVID-19 cases in the coming months.

Researchers recently reported that the subvariants have mutated for better “immune escape,” or the ability to avoid antibodies from vaccination or previous infection.

“That has changed our view for what will happen this summer,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, an epidemiologist who has developed COVID-19 forecasts for the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, told The Boston Globe.

Until recently, Dr. Mokdad expected the United States to have a “very good summer” in terms of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths through September. The U.S. is reporting about 100,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker by The New York Times, which has remained flat throughout June. Cases will likely decrease this summer, Dr. Mokdad said, though the decline will be slower and smaller than first thought.

As of June 18, BA.4 and BA.5 accounted for about 35% of cases in the United States, according to the latest CDC data, with BA.5 making up 23.5% and BA.4 making up 11.4%. The two subvariants will likely take over BA.2.12.1 as top subvariants in coming weeks.

“I expect that BA.5 will likely become the dominant virus in the United States this summer,” Dan Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the Globe.

Dr. Barouch said the Omicron subvariants will likely create a summer of “substantial infections” but low rates of hospitalization and death. He published a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found BA.4 and BA.5 are better at escaping antibodies than other coronavirus strains – about three times better than the Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 and 20 times better than the first coronavirus strain.

“What we’re seeing with each subsequent variant is iteratively higher levels of transmissibility and higher levels of antibody immune escape,” he said. “We’re seeing high levels of infection in populations that are highly vaccinated, as well as populations that have a high level of natural immunity to the prior variants.”

At the same time, current antibodies still appear to protect people against the worst outcomes, Dr. Barouch said.

“If people have vaccine immunity or natural immunity, then they have substantial protection against severe disease,” he said.

So far, researchers have found that Omicron subvariants tend to cause less severe disease than other variants, such as Delta. Dr. Mokdad estimated that 80% of Omicron infections don’t show symptoms.

He said there is a “remote possibility” of another wave during the summer, but he expects cases to rise significantly around the beginning of October, when the seasons change, and most people’s immunity will wane. Other things could play into the predictions this summer, he noted, such as coronavirus mutations and new variants.

“Anybody that models this more than a couple of weeks out is basically just using pixie dust,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the newspaper.

“There is no pattern whatsoever developing from a seasonality standpoint. It’s all being driven by the variants,” he said. “We just have to be humble and acknowledge that we don’t know.”

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

New cases of COVID-19 continue to drop among children, but the vaccination effort in those under age 5 years began with something less than a bang.

Data are available only for the first 2 weekdays after the final approval on Saturday, June 18, but they show that just 1,245 children aged 4 years and younger received the COVID vaccine on June 20 and June 21. In the first 2 days after their respective approvals, almost 99,000 children aged 5-11 years and over 675,000 children aged 12-15 were vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children aged 0-4 years represent almost 6% of the overall population, compared with 8.7% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 5.1% for those aged 12-15.

The recent decline in new cases over the past 4 weeks and the substantial decline since the Omicron surge could be a factor in the lack of response, but it is worth noting that the almost 68,000 new child cases reported in the past week, June 17-23, are “far higher than 1 year ago, June 24, 2021, when 8,400 child cases were reported,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

That total for June 17-23 was 19% lower than the previous week and down by 40% since new cases hit a spring peak of 112,000 in late May. Regionally, new cases were down in the Midwest, the South, and the West, the AAP/CHA report showed, but the Northeast saw a small increase, which could be a signal of things to come for the summer.

The decline in new cases, however, has not been accompanied by decreases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits. New admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID were at 0.31 per 100,000 population on June 24 after reaching that level on June 15, so no drop-off has occurred yet but there are signs of leveling off, based on CDC data.

The ED visit rates have been fairly steady through June, although COVID-related visits were up to 3.4% of all ED visits on June 22 for children aged 0-11 years, after being below 3% for the first 2 weeks of the month. The rate for children aged 12-15 has been between 1.6% and 1.9% for the past 3 weeks and the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds has been hovering between 1.7% and 2.2% for most of June, after going as high as 2.7% in late May, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 continue to drop among children, but the vaccination effort in those under age 5 years began with something less than a bang.

Data are available only for the first 2 weekdays after the final approval on Saturday, June 18, but they show that just 1,245 children aged 4 years and younger received the COVID vaccine on June 20 and June 21. In the first 2 days after their respective approvals, almost 99,000 children aged 5-11 years and over 675,000 children aged 12-15 were vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children aged 0-4 years represent almost 6% of the overall population, compared with 8.7% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 5.1% for those aged 12-15.

The recent decline in new cases over the past 4 weeks and the substantial decline since the Omicron surge could be a factor in the lack of response, but it is worth noting that the almost 68,000 new child cases reported in the past week, June 17-23, are “far higher than 1 year ago, June 24, 2021, when 8,400 child cases were reported,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

That total for June 17-23 was 19% lower than the previous week and down by 40% since new cases hit a spring peak of 112,000 in late May. Regionally, new cases were down in the Midwest, the South, and the West, the AAP/CHA report showed, but the Northeast saw a small increase, which could be a signal of things to come for the summer.

The decline in new cases, however, has not been accompanied by decreases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits. New admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID were at 0.31 per 100,000 population on June 24 after reaching that level on June 15, so no drop-off has occurred yet but there are signs of leveling off, based on CDC data.

The ED visit rates have been fairly steady through June, although COVID-related visits were up to 3.4% of all ED visits on June 22 for children aged 0-11 years, after being below 3% for the first 2 weeks of the month. The rate for children aged 12-15 has been between 1.6% and 1.9% for the past 3 weeks and the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds has been hovering between 1.7% and 2.2% for most of June, after going as high as 2.7% in late May, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 continue to drop among children, but the vaccination effort in those under age 5 years began with something less than a bang.

Data are available only for the first 2 weekdays after the final approval on Saturday, June 18, but they show that just 1,245 children aged 4 years and younger received the COVID vaccine on June 20 and June 21. In the first 2 days after their respective approvals, almost 99,000 children aged 5-11 years and over 675,000 children aged 12-15 were vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children aged 0-4 years represent almost 6% of the overall population, compared with 8.7% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 5.1% for those aged 12-15.

The recent decline in new cases over the past 4 weeks and the substantial decline since the Omicron surge could be a factor in the lack of response, but it is worth noting that the almost 68,000 new child cases reported in the past week, June 17-23, are “far higher than 1 year ago, June 24, 2021, when 8,400 child cases were reported,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

That total for June 17-23 was 19% lower than the previous week and down by 40% since new cases hit a spring peak of 112,000 in late May. Regionally, new cases were down in the Midwest, the South, and the West, the AAP/CHA report showed, but the Northeast saw a small increase, which could be a signal of things to come for the summer.

The decline in new cases, however, has not been accompanied by decreases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits. New admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID were at 0.31 per 100,000 population on June 24 after reaching that level on June 15, so no drop-off has occurred yet but there are signs of leveling off, based on CDC data.

The ED visit rates have been fairly steady through June, although COVID-related visits were up to 3.4% of all ED visits on June 22 for children aged 0-11 years, after being below 3% for the first 2 weeks of the month. The rate for children aged 12-15 has been between 1.6% and 1.9% for the past 3 weeks and the rate for 16- and 17-year-olds has been hovering between 1.7% and 2.2% for most of June, after going as high as 2.7% in late May, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.

U.S. maternal deaths – those during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy – increased substantially by 33.3% after March 2020 corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic onset, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) revealed this rise in maternal deaths was higher than the 22% overall excess death estimate associated with the pandemic in 2020.

Increases were highest for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black women, exacerbating already high rates of disparity in comparison with White women, wrote Marie E. Thoma, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and Eugene R. Declercq, PhD, a professor at Boston University.

The authors noted that this spike in maternal deaths might be caused either by conditions directly related to COVID-19, such as respiratory or viral infections, or by conditions worsened by pandemic-associated health care disruptions including those for diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

The precise causes, however, could not be discerned from the data, the authors noted.

The NCHS reported an 18.4% increase in U.S. maternal mortality from 2019 to 2020. The relative increase was 44.4% among Hispanic, 25.7% among non-Hispanic Black, and 6.1% among non-Hispanic White women.

“The rise in maternal mortality among Hispanic women was unprecedented,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview. Given a 16.8% increase in overall U.S. mortality in 2020, largely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors examined the pandemic’s role in [the higher] maternal death rates for 2020.

“Prior to this report, the NCHS released an e-report that there had been a rise in maternal mortality in 2020, but questions remained about the role of the pandemic in this rise that their report hadn’t addressed,” Dr. Thoma said in an interview “So we decided to look at the data further to assess whether the rise coincided with the pandemic and how this differed by race/ethnicity, whether there were changes in the causes of maternal death, and how often COVID-19 was listed as a contributory factor in those deaths.”

A total of 1,588 maternal deaths (18.8 per 100,000 live births) occurred before the pandemic versus 684 deaths (25.1 per 100,000 live births) during the 2020 phase of the pandemic, for a relative increase of 33.3%.

Direct obstetrical causes of death included diabetes, hypertensive and liver disorders, pregnancy-related infections, and obstetrical hemorrhage and embolism. Indirect causes comprised, among others, nonobstetrical infections and diseases of the circulatory and respiratory systems as well as mental and nervous disorders.

Relative increases in direct causes (27.7%) were mostly associated with diabetes (95.9%), hypertensive disorders (39.0%), and other specified pregnancy-related conditions (48.0%).

COVID-19 was commonly listed as a lethal condition along with other viral diseases (16 of 16 deaths and diseases of the respiratory system (11 of 19 deaths).

Late maternal mortality – defined as more than 42 days but less than 1 year after pregnancy – increased by 41%. “This was surprising as we might anticipate risk being higher during pregnancy given that pregnant women may be more susceptible, but we see that this rise was also found among people in the later postpartum period,” Dr. Thoma said.

Absolute and relative changes were highest for Hispanic women (8.9 per 100,000 live births and 74.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black women (16.8 per 100,000 live births and 40.2%). In contrast, non-Hispanic White women saw increases of just 2.9 per 100,000 live births and 17.2%.

“Overall, we found the rise in maternal mortality in 2020 was concentrated after the start of pandemic, particularly for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women, and we saw a dramatic rise in respiratory-related conditions,” Dr. Thoma said.

In a comment, Steven Woolf, MD, MPH, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said the findings are very consistent with his and others research showing dramatic increases in overall death rates from many causes during the pandemic, with these ranging from COVID-19 leading conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease to less-studied causes such as drug overdoses and alcoholism caused by the stresses of the pandemic. Again, deaths were likely caused by both COVID-19 infections and disruptions in diagnosis and care.

“So a rise in maternal mortality would unfortunately also be expected, and these researchers have shown that,” he said in an interview. In addition, they have confirmed “the pattern of stark health disparities in the Hispanic and Black populations relative to the White. Our group has shown marked decreases in the life expectancies of the Black and Hispanic populations relative to the White population.”

While he might take issue with the study’s research methodology, Dr. Woolf said, “The work is useful partly because we need to work out the best research methods to do this kind of analysis because we really need to understand the effects on maternal mortality.”

He said sorting out the best way to do this type of research will be important for looking at excess deaths and maternal mortality following other events, for example, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The authors acknowledged certain study limitations, including the large percentage of COVID-19 cases with a nonspecific underlying cause. According to Dr. Thoma and Dr. Declercq, that reflects a maternal death coding problem that needs to be addressed, as well as a partitioning of data. The latter resulted in small numbers for some categories, with rates suppressed for fewer than 16 deaths because of reduced reliability.

“We found that more specific information is often available on death certificates but is lost in the process of coding,” said Dr. Thoma. “We were able to reclassify many of these causes to a more specific cause that we attributed to be the primary cause of death.”

The authors said future studies of maternal death should examine the contribution of the pandemic to racial and ethnic disparities and should identify specific causes of maternal deaths overall and associated with COVID-19.

In earlier research, the authors previously warned of possible misclassifications of maternal deaths.

They found evidence of both underreporting and overreporting of deaths, with possible overreporting predominant, whereas accurate data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of maternal mortality reduction programs.

Dr. Thoma’s group will continue to monitor mortality trends with the release of 2021 data. “We hope we will see improvements in 2021 given greater access to vaccines, treatments, and fewer health care disruptions,” Dr. Thoma said. “It will be important to continue to stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and postpartum people.”

This study had no external funding. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Woolf declared no conflicts of interest.