Infectious Disease Practitioner

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for doctors and public health officials regarding the unusual outbreak of acute hepatitis among children.

As of May 5, the CDC and state health departments are investigating 109 children with hepatitis of unknown origin across 25 states and territories.

More than half have tested positive for adenovirus, the CDC said. More than 90% have been hospitalized, and 14% have had liver transplants. Five deaths are under investigation.

This week’s CDC alert provides updated recommendations for testing, given the potential association between adenovirus infection and pediatric hepatitis, or liver inflammation.

“Clinicians are recommended to consider adenovirus testing for patients with hepatitis of unknown etiology and to report such cases to their state or jurisdictional public health authorities,” the CDC said.

Doctors should also consider collecting a blood sample, respiratory sample, and stool sample. They may also collect liver tissue if a biopsy occurred or an autopsy is available.

In November 2021, clinicians at a large children’s hospital in Alabama notified the CDC about five pediatric patients with significant liver injury, including three with acute liver failure, who also tested positive for adenovirus. All children were previously healthy, and none had COVID-19, according to a CDC alert in April.

Four additional pediatric patients with hepatitis and adenovirus infection were identified. After lab testing found adenovirus infection in all nine patients in the initial cluster, public health officials began investigating a possible association between pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus. Among the five specimens that could be sequenced, they were all adenovirus type 41.

Unexplained hepatitis cases have been reported in children worldwide, reaching 450 cases and 11 deaths, according to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

The cases have been reported in more than two dozen countries around the world, with 14 countries reporting more than five cases. The United Kingdom and the United States have reported the largest case counts so far.

In the United Kingdom, officials have identified 163 cases in children under age 16 years, including 11 that required liver transplants.

In the European Union, 14 countries have reported 106 cases collectively, with Italy reporting 35 cases and Spain reporting 22 cases. Outside of the European Union, Brazil has reported 16, Indonesia has reported 15, and Israel has reported 12.

Among the 11 deaths reported globally, the Uniyed States has reported five, Indonesia has reported five, and Palestine has reported one.

The cause of severe hepatitis remains a mystery, according to Ars Technica. Some cases have been identified retrospectively, dating back to the beginning of October 2021.

About 70% of the cases that have been tested for an adenovirus have tested positive, and subtype testing continues to show adenovirus type 41. The cases don’t appear to be linked to common causes, such as hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D, or E, which can cause liver inflammation and injury.

Adenoviruses aren’t known to cause hepatitis in healthy children, though the viruses have been linked to liver damage in children with compromised immune systems, according to Ars Technica. Adenoviruses typically cause respiratory infections in children, although type 41 tends to cause gastrointestinal illness.

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus,” Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist at the WHO, said May 10 during a press briefing.

“I think [there’s] also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or as a past infection,” she said.

WHO officials expect data within a week from U.K. cases, Ms. Easterbrook said, which may indicate whether the adenovirus is an incidental infection or a more direct cause.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for doctors and public health officials regarding the unusual outbreak of acute hepatitis among children.

As of May 5, the CDC and state health departments are investigating 109 children with hepatitis of unknown origin across 25 states and territories.

More than half have tested positive for adenovirus, the CDC said. More than 90% have been hospitalized, and 14% have had liver transplants. Five deaths are under investigation.

This week’s CDC alert provides updated recommendations for testing, given the potential association between adenovirus infection and pediatric hepatitis, or liver inflammation.

“Clinicians are recommended to consider adenovirus testing for patients with hepatitis of unknown etiology and to report such cases to their state or jurisdictional public health authorities,” the CDC said.

Doctors should also consider collecting a blood sample, respiratory sample, and stool sample. They may also collect liver tissue if a biopsy occurred or an autopsy is available.

In November 2021, clinicians at a large children’s hospital in Alabama notified the CDC about five pediatric patients with significant liver injury, including three with acute liver failure, who also tested positive for adenovirus. All children were previously healthy, and none had COVID-19, according to a CDC alert in April.

Four additional pediatric patients with hepatitis and adenovirus infection were identified. After lab testing found adenovirus infection in all nine patients in the initial cluster, public health officials began investigating a possible association between pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus. Among the five specimens that could be sequenced, they were all adenovirus type 41.

Unexplained hepatitis cases have been reported in children worldwide, reaching 450 cases and 11 deaths, according to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

The cases have been reported in more than two dozen countries around the world, with 14 countries reporting more than five cases. The United Kingdom and the United States have reported the largest case counts so far.

In the United Kingdom, officials have identified 163 cases in children under age 16 years, including 11 that required liver transplants.

In the European Union, 14 countries have reported 106 cases collectively, with Italy reporting 35 cases and Spain reporting 22 cases. Outside of the European Union, Brazil has reported 16, Indonesia has reported 15, and Israel has reported 12.

Among the 11 deaths reported globally, the Uniyed States has reported five, Indonesia has reported five, and Palestine has reported one.

The cause of severe hepatitis remains a mystery, according to Ars Technica. Some cases have been identified retrospectively, dating back to the beginning of October 2021.

About 70% of the cases that have been tested for an adenovirus have tested positive, and subtype testing continues to show adenovirus type 41. The cases don’t appear to be linked to common causes, such as hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D, or E, which can cause liver inflammation and injury.

Adenoviruses aren’t known to cause hepatitis in healthy children, though the viruses have been linked to liver damage in children with compromised immune systems, according to Ars Technica. Adenoviruses typically cause respiratory infections in children, although type 41 tends to cause gastrointestinal illness.

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus,” Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist at the WHO, said May 10 during a press briefing.

“I think [there’s] also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or as a past infection,” she said.

WHO officials expect data within a week from U.K. cases, Ms. Easterbrook said, which may indicate whether the adenovirus is an incidental infection or a more direct cause.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for doctors and public health officials regarding the unusual outbreak of acute hepatitis among children.

As of May 5, the CDC and state health departments are investigating 109 children with hepatitis of unknown origin across 25 states and territories.

More than half have tested positive for adenovirus, the CDC said. More than 90% have been hospitalized, and 14% have had liver transplants. Five deaths are under investigation.

This week’s CDC alert provides updated recommendations for testing, given the potential association between adenovirus infection and pediatric hepatitis, or liver inflammation.

“Clinicians are recommended to consider adenovirus testing for patients with hepatitis of unknown etiology and to report such cases to their state or jurisdictional public health authorities,” the CDC said.

Doctors should also consider collecting a blood sample, respiratory sample, and stool sample. They may also collect liver tissue if a biopsy occurred or an autopsy is available.

In November 2021, clinicians at a large children’s hospital in Alabama notified the CDC about five pediatric patients with significant liver injury, including three with acute liver failure, who also tested positive for adenovirus. All children were previously healthy, and none had COVID-19, according to a CDC alert in April.

Four additional pediatric patients with hepatitis and adenovirus infection were identified. After lab testing found adenovirus infection in all nine patients in the initial cluster, public health officials began investigating a possible association between pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus. Among the five specimens that could be sequenced, they were all adenovirus type 41.

Unexplained hepatitis cases have been reported in children worldwide, reaching 450 cases and 11 deaths, according to the latest update from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

The cases have been reported in more than two dozen countries around the world, with 14 countries reporting more than five cases. The United Kingdom and the United States have reported the largest case counts so far.

In the United Kingdom, officials have identified 163 cases in children under age 16 years, including 11 that required liver transplants.

In the European Union, 14 countries have reported 106 cases collectively, with Italy reporting 35 cases and Spain reporting 22 cases. Outside of the European Union, Brazil has reported 16, Indonesia has reported 15, and Israel has reported 12.

Among the 11 deaths reported globally, the Uniyed States has reported five, Indonesia has reported five, and Palestine has reported one.

The cause of severe hepatitis remains a mystery, according to Ars Technica. Some cases have been identified retrospectively, dating back to the beginning of October 2021.

About 70% of the cases that have been tested for an adenovirus have tested positive, and subtype testing continues to show adenovirus type 41. The cases don’t appear to be linked to common causes, such as hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D, or E, which can cause liver inflammation and injury.

Adenoviruses aren’t known to cause hepatitis in healthy children, though the viruses have been linked to liver damage in children with compromised immune systems, according to Ars Technica. Adenoviruses typically cause respiratory infections in children, although type 41 tends to cause gastrointestinal illness.

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus,” Philippa Easterbrook, a senior scientist at the WHO, said May 10 during a press briefing.

“I think [there’s] also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or as a past infection,” she said.

WHO officials expect data within a week from U.K. cases, Ms. Easterbrook said, which may indicate whether the adenovirus is an incidental infection or a more direct cause.

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

Something different appears to be going on when an older adult develops inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and now researchers offer more evidence that antibiotics could be playing a role.

Most studies to date have assessed a link between antibiotics and IBD in younger patients, lead researcher Adam S. Faye, MD, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

The impact of antibiotic use on the incidence of IBD in older adults is really unknown, he added.

In contrast to younger people with IBD, who tend to have a strong family history or genetic predisposition to developing Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, the cause is likely different in older populations.

“There’s clearly something in the environment that’s driving this new older-onset IBD,” said Dr. Faye, who is an assistant professor of medicine and population health at New York University.
 

Antibiotics as a contributing link

Dr. Faye and colleagues took a closer look at antibiotics as contributing to this link. They studied 2.3 million patient records in Denmark’s national medical registry from 2000 to 2018. They identified people aged 60 years and older who were newly diagnosed with IBD, and they then assessed the number, frequency, and timing of any antibiotic prescriptions.

They found that IBD was 27% more likely in this age group if the patients had received any antibiotic prescription.

They also found that the chance of developing IBD was higher as the number of antibiotic prescriptions increased. For example, IBD was 55% more likely if a person had received two prescriptions, and it was 96% more likely with four prescriptions. The risk really jumped with five or more antibiotic prescriptions – a person with this many prescriptions was more than 2.3 times (236%) more likely to be diagnosed with IBD than those who had not been prescribed antibiotics in the prior 5 years.

Not all antibiotics were equal, however. For example, the investigators found no link with nitrofurantoin, an antibiotic commonly prescribed for urinary tract infections. In contrast, all other antibiotic agents that were evaluated, and especially fluoroquinolones, nitroimidazoles, and macrolides, were associated with IBD.

Timing made some difference.

“The risk was highest if antibiotics were prescribed within the 1- to 2-year period before diagnosis, and it declined as you go farther out. But the risks persist,” Dr. Faye said. He noted that they even found that risk was elevated 10 years out.

The investigators also considered whether the antibiotic agent or infection was behind the association.

Dr. Faye cited previous research, again in younger people with IBD, that revealed that “infections plus antibiotics substantially increase the odds or risk of developing IBD more than the infection alone.

“So there really does seem to be something that the antibiotics are doing here,” Dr. Faye said.

A leading theory is that antibiotics disrupt the gut microbiota and increase the risk for developing IBD. “But, obviously, it’s quite complicated,” he said.
 

Clinical implications

The findings suggest that older people who may have IBD should be screened for prior antibiotic use, Dr. Faye said.

“This is a result that really has important implications for diagnosing older adults with new gastrointestinal symptoms,” he said. “Inflammatory bowel disease often can be overlooked in older adults because there’s a lot of different diagnoses you’re thinking of.”

IBD “should be considered, especially if you have a patient who’s reporting multiple courses of antibiotics in the last few years,” he added.

The results suggest another reason that antimicrobial stewardship programs should promote judicial use of these agents beyond concerns about resistance.

“We think of antibiotic stewardship to prevent the development of multidrug-resistant organisms, but we should be thinking about it to also prevent the development of inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Faye said.

Although this study adds to the evidence implicating antibiotics and expands the concept to an older population, “we really don’t have a great handle on what all of the environmental and other factors are,” he said.

Some researchers point to smoking and diet, among other factors, but the interplay remains unknown, Dr. Faye added.

The study is important because the incidence of IBD is increasing within the older population, “and this is one of the first studies to look at it,” he said.

Dr. Faye and colleagues plan to start a new study to evaluate other environmental factors.

“Hopefully, we’ll have more within the next few years to report,” he said.
 

Shedding more light on older-onset IBD worldwide

“It’s a well-done study,” Aline Charabaty, MD, said in a comment. “We are seeing that there’s an increase of incidence of IBD in the entire population, but even more so in the elderly.”

IBD is likely caused by a combination of factors, including genetics, environmental influences, and dysfunction of the gut immune system, agreed Dr. Charabaty, who is an assistant clinical professor in the division of gastroenterology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The research “goes along with other studies that we’ve done in the pediatric and adult populations that show antibiotics exposure increases the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.

For a broader perspective of the study’s findings, Dr. Faye was asked during the media briefing if the results of this Danish registry study would be generalizable to the U.S. population.

“The simplest answer is we’ll need to redo this study within the U.S. to make absolutely sure,” Dr. Faye said. She noted that prior studies in the United States and elsewhere have found a risk associated with antibiotics, although again these studies focused on younger patients.

Dr. Charabaty was more certain that the findings were meaningful outside of Denmark.

“I definitely think this will apply to our U.S. population,” added Dr. Charabaty, who is also the clinical director of the IBD Center at Johns Hopkins–Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. “We have very similar practices in terms of how we approach antibiotic use.

“This could be one of the risk factors that’s promoting an increase in IBD everywhere,” she added.

The study was conducted in partnership with the Danish National Center of Excellence PREDICT Program. Dr. Faye and Dr. Charabaty did not report any conflicts of interest related to this study.

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

Something different appears to be going on when an older adult develops inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and now researchers offer more evidence that antibiotics could be playing a role.

Most studies to date have assessed a link between antibiotics and IBD in younger patients, lead researcher Adam S. Faye, MD, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

The impact of antibiotic use on the incidence of IBD in older adults is really unknown, he added.

In contrast to younger people with IBD, who tend to have a strong family history or genetic predisposition to developing Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, the cause is likely different in older populations.

“There’s clearly something in the environment that’s driving this new older-onset IBD,” said Dr. Faye, who is an assistant professor of medicine and population health at New York University.
 

Antibiotics as a contributing link

Dr. Faye and colleagues took a closer look at antibiotics as contributing to this link. They studied 2.3 million patient records in Denmark’s national medical registry from 2000 to 2018. They identified people aged 60 years and older who were newly diagnosed with IBD, and they then assessed the number, frequency, and timing of any antibiotic prescriptions.

They found that IBD was 27% more likely in this age group if the patients had received any antibiotic prescription.

They also found that the chance of developing IBD was higher as the number of antibiotic prescriptions increased. For example, IBD was 55% more likely if a person had received two prescriptions, and it was 96% more likely with four prescriptions. The risk really jumped with five or more antibiotic prescriptions – a person with this many prescriptions was more than 2.3 times (236%) more likely to be diagnosed with IBD than those who had not been prescribed antibiotics in the prior 5 years.

Not all antibiotics were equal, however. For example, the investigators found no link with nitrofurantoin, an antibiotic commonly prescribed for urinary tract infections. In contrast, all other antibiotic agents that were evaluated, and especially fluoroquinolones, nitroimidazoles, and macrolides, were associated with IBD.

Timing made some difference.

“The risk was highest if antibiotics were prescribed within the 1- to 2-year period before diagnosis, and it declined as you go farther out. But the risks persist,” Dr. Faye said. He noted that they even found that risk was elevated 10 years out.

The investigators also considered whether the antibiotic agent or infection was behind the association.

Dr. Faye cited previous research, again in younger people with IBD, that revealed that “infections plus antibiotics substantially increase the odds or risk of developing IBD more than the infection alone.

“So there really does seem to be something that the antibiotics are doing here,” Dr. Faye said.

A leading theory is that antibiotics disrupt the gut microbiota and increase the risk for developing IBD. “But, obviously, it’s quite complicated,” he said.
 

Clinical implications

The findings suggest that older people who may have IBD should be screened for prior antibiotic use, Dr. Faye said.

“This is a result that really has important implications for diagnosing older adults with new gastrointestinal symptoms,” he said. “Inflammatory bowel disease often can be overlooked in older adults because there’s a lot of different diagnoses you’re thinking of.”

IBD “should be considered, especially if you have a patient who’s reporting multiple courses of antibiotics in the last few years,” he added.

The results suggest another reason that antimicrobial stewardship programs should promote judicial use of these agents beyond concerns about resistance.

“We think of antibiotic stewardship to prevent the development of multidrug-resistant organisms, but we should be thinking about it to also prevent the development of inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Faye said.

Although this study adds to the evidence implicating antibiotics and expands the concept to an older population, “we really don’t have a great handle on what all of the environmental and other factors are,” he said.

Some researchers point to smoking and diet, among other factors, but the interplay remains unknown, Dr. Faye added.

The study is important because the incidence of IBD is increasing within the older population, “and this is one of the first studies to look at it,” he said.

Dr. Faye and colleagues plan to start a new study to evaluate other environmental factors.

“Hopefully, we’ll have more within the next few years to report,” he said.
 

Shedding more light on older-onset IBD worldwide

“It’s a well-done study,” Aline Charabaty, MD, said in a comment. “We are seeing that there’s an increase of incidence of IBD in the entire population, but even more so in the elderly.”

IBD is likely caused by a combination of factors, including genetics, environmental influences, and dysfunction of the gut immune system, agreed Dr. Charabaty, who is an assistant clinical professor in the division of gastroenterology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The research “goes along with other studies that we’ve done in the pediatric and adult populations that show antibiotics exposure increases the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.

For a broader perspective of the study’s findings, Dr. Faye was asked during the media briefing if the results of this Danish registry study would be generalizable to the U.S. population.

“The simplest answer is we’ll need to redo this study within the U.S. to make absolutely sure,” Dr. Faye said. She noted that prior studies in the United States and elsewhere have found a risk associated with antibiotics, although again these studies focused on younger patients.

Dr. Charabaty was more certain that the findings were meaningful outside of Denmark.

“I definitely think this will apply to our U.S. population,” added Dr. Charabaty, who is also the clinical director of the IBD Center at Johns Hopkins–Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. “We have very similar practices in terms of how we approach antibiotic use.

“This could be one of the risk factors that’s promoting an increase in IBD everywhere,” she added.

The study was conducted in partnership with the Danish National Center of Excellence PREDICT Program. Dr. Faye and Dr. Charabaty did not report any conflicts of interest related to this study.

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

Something different appears to be going on when an older adult develops inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and now researchers offer more evidence that antibiotics could be playing a role.

Most studies to date have assessed a link between antibiotics and IBD in younger patients, lead researcher Adam S. Faye, MD, said during a media briefing that previewed select research for the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

The impact of antibiotic use on the incidence of IBD in older adults is really unknown, he added.

In contrast to younger people with IBD, who tend to have a strong family history or genetic predisposition to developing Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, the cause is likely different in older populations.

“There’s clearly something in the environment that’s driving this new older-onset IBD,” said Dr. Faye, who is an assistant professor of medicine and population health at New York University.
 

Antibiotics as a contributing link

Dr. Faye and colleagues took a closer look at antibiotics as contributing to this link. They studied 2.3 million patient records in Denmark’s national medical registry from 2000 to 2018. They identified people aged 60 years and older who were newly diagnosed with IBD, and they then assessed the number, frequency, and timing of any antibiotic prescriptions.

They found that IBD was 27% more likely in this age group if the patients had received any antibiotic prescription.

They also found that the chance of developing IBD was higher as the number of antibiotic prescriptions increased. For example, IBD was 55% more likely if a person had received two prescriptions, and it was 96% more likely with four prescriptions. The risk really jumped with five or more antibiotic prescriptions – a person with this many prescriptions was more than 2.3 times (236%) more likely to be diagnosed with IBD than those who had not been prescribed antibiotics in the prior 5 years.

Not all antibiotics were equal, however. For example, the investigators found no link with nitrofurantoin, an antibiotic commonly prescribed for urinary tract infections. In contrast, all other antibiotic agents that were evaluated, and especially fluoroquinolones, nitroimidazoles, and macrolides, were associated with IBD.

Timing made some difference.

“The risk was highest if antibiotics were prescribed within the 1- to 2-year period before diagnosis, and it declined as you go farther out. But the risks persist,” Dr. Faye said. He noted that they even found that risk was elevated 10 years out.

The investigators also considered whether the antibiotic agent or infection was behind the association.

Dr. Faye cited previous research, again in younger people with IBD, that revealed that “infections plus antibiotics substantially increase the odds or risk of developing IBD more than the infection alone.

“So there really does seem to be something that the antibiotics are doing here,” Dr. Faye said.

A leading theory is that antibiotics disrupt the gut microbiota and increase the risk for developing IBD. “But, obviously, it’s quite complicated,” he said.
 

Clinical implications

The findings suggest that older people who may have IBD should be screened for prior antibiotic use, Dr. Faye said.

“This is a result that really has important implications for diagnosing older adults with new gastrointestinal symptoms,” he said. “Inflammatory bowel disease often can be overlooked in older adults because there’s a lot of different diagnoses you’re thinking of.”

IBD “should be considered, especially if you have a patient who’s reporting multiple courses of antibiotics in the last few years,” he added.

The results suggest another reason that antimicrobial stewardship programs should promote judicial use of these agents beyond concerns about resistance.

“We think of antibiotic stewardship to prevent the development of multidrug-resistant organisms, but we should be thinking about it to also prevent the development of inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Faye said.

Although this study adds to the evidence implicating antibiotics and expands the concept to an older population, “we really don’t have a great handle on what all of the environmental and other factors are,” he said.

Some researchers point to smoking and diet, among other factors, but the interplay remains unknown, Dr. Faye added.

The study is important because the incidence of IBD is increasing within the older population, “and this is one of the first studies to look at it,” he said.

Dr. Faye and colleagues plan to start a new study to evaluate other environmental factors.

“Hopefully, we’ll have more within the next few years to report,” he said.
 

Shedding more light on older-onset IBD worldwide

“It’s a well-done study,” Aline Charabaty, MD, said in a comment. “We are seeing that there’s an increase of incidence of IBD in the entire population, but even more so in the elderly.”

IBD is likely caused by a combination of factors, including genetics, environmental influences, and dysfunction of the gut immune system, agreed Dr. Charabaty, who is an assistant clinical professor in the division of gastroenterology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The research “goes along with other studies that we’ve done in the pediatric and adult populations that show antibiotics exposure increases the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.

For a broader perspective of the study’s findings, Dr. Faye was asked during the media briefing if the results of this Danish registry study would be generalizable to the U.S. population.

“The simplest answer is we’ll need to redo this study within the U.S. to make absolutely sure,” Dr. Faye said. She noted that prior studies in the United States and elsewhere have found a risk associated with antibiotics, although again these studies focused on younger patients.

Dr. Charabaty was more certain that the findings were meaningful outside of Denmark.

“I definitely think this will apply to our U.S. population,” added Dr. Charabaty, who is also the clinical director of the IBD Center at Johns Hopkins–Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington. “We have very similar practices in terms of how we approach antibiotic use.

“This could be one of the risk factors that’s promoting an increase in IBD everywhere,” she added.

The study was conducted in partnership with the Danish National Center of Excellence PREDICT Program. Dr. Faye and Dr. Charabaty did not report any conflicts of interest related to this study.

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

The neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 infection appear to be no different than for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI).

Results of a large study showed risks of new neuropsychiatric illness were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving either severe COVID-19 infection or other SARI, compared with the general population.
 

This suggests that disease severity, rather than pathogen, is the most relevant factor in new-onset neuropsychiatric illness, the investigators note.

The risk of new-onset neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection are “substantial, but similar to those after other severe respiratory infections,” study investigator Peter Watkinson, MD, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

Significant mental health burden

Research has shown a significant burden of neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection. However, it’s unclear how this risk compares to SARI.

To investigate, Dr. Watkinson and colleagues evaluated electronic health record data on more than 8.3 million adults, including 16,679 (0.02%) who survived a hospital admission for SARI and 32,525 (0.03%) who survived a hospital stay for COVID-19.

Compared with the remaining population, risks of new anxiety disorder, dementia, psychotic disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder diagnoses were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving hospitalization for either COVID-19 or SARI.

Compared with the wider population, survivors of severe SARI or COVID-19 were also at increased risk of starting treatment with antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, or antipsychotics.

When comparing survivors of SARI hospitalization to survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization, no significant differences were observed in the postdischarge rates of new-onset anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, or bipolar affective disorder.

The SARI and COVID groups also did not differ in terms of their postdischarge risks of antidepressant or hypnotic/anxiolytic use, but the COVID survivors had a 20% lower risk of starting an antipsychotic.

“In this cohort study, SARI were found to be associated with significant postacute neuropsychiatric morbidity, for which COVID-19 is not distinctly different,” Dr. Watkinson and colleagues write.

“These results may help refine our understanding of the post–severe COVID-19 phenotype and may inform post-discharge support for patients requiring hospital-based and intensive care for SARI regardless of causative pathogen,” they write.

 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, described the study as “impressive.” However, he pointed out that the study’s observational design is a limitation.

“One can never be absolutely certain about the interpretation of findings of an observational study. What the research can’t tell us is what caused the increased psychiatric risks for people hospitalized with COVID-19 or some other serious respiratory disease,” Dr. McConway said.

“It can’t tell us what might happen in the future, when, we all hope, many fewer are being hospitalized with COVID-19 than was the case in those first two waves, and the current backlog of provision of some health services has decreased,” he added.

“So we can’t just say that, in general, serious COVID-19 has much the same neuropsychiatric consequences as other very serious respiratory illness. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t,” Dr. McConway cautioned.

Max Taquet, PhD, with the University of Oxford, noted that the study is limited to hospitalized adult patients, leaving open the question of risk in nonhospitalized individuals – which is the overwhelming majority of patients with COVID-19 – or in children.

Whether the neuropsychiatric risks have remained the same since the emergence of the Omicron variant also remains “an open question since all patients in this study were diagnosed before July 2021,” Dr. Taquet said in statement.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre. Dr. Watkinson disclosed grants from the National Institute for Health Research and Sensyne Health outside the submitted work; and serving as chief medical officer for Sensyne Health prior to this work, as well as holding shares in the company. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the UK Science Media Centre and a member of its advisory committee. His comments were provided in his capacity as an independent professional statistician. Dr. Taquet has worked on similar studies trying to identify, quantify, and specify the neurological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19.

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

The neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 infection appear to be no different than for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI).

Results of a large study showed risks of new neuropsychiatric illness were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving either severe COVID-19 infection or other SARI, compared with the general population.
 

This suggests that disease severity, rather than pathogen, is the most relevant factor in new-onset neuropsychiatric illness, the investigators note.

The risk of new-onset neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection are “substantial, but similar to those after other severe respiratory infections,” study investigator Peter Watkinson, MD, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

Significant mental health burden

Research has shown a significant burden of neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection. However, it’s unclear how this risk compares to SARI.

To investigate, Dr. Watkinson and colleagues evaluated electronic health record data on more than 8.3 million adults, including 16,679 (0.02%) who survived a hospital admission for SARI and 32,525 (0.03%) who survived a hospital stay for COVID-19.

Compared with the remaining population, risks of new anxiety disorder, dementia, psychotic disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder diagnoses were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving hospitalization for either COVID-19 or SARI.

Compared with the wider population, survivors of severe SARI or COVID-19 were also at increased risk of starting treatment with antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, or antipsychotics.

When comparing survivors of SARI hospitalization to survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization, no significant differences were observed in the postdischarge rates of new-onset anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, or bipolar affective disorder.

The SARI and COVID groups also did not differ in terms of their postdischarge risks of antidepressant or hypnotic/anxiolytic use, but the COVID survivors had a 20% lower risk of starting an antipsychotic.

“In this cohort study, SARI were found to be associated with significant postacute neuropsychiatric morbidity, for which COVID-19 is not distinctly different,” Dr. Watkinson and colleagues write.

“These results may help refine our understanding of the post–severe COVID-19 phenotype and may inform post-discharge support for patients requiring hospital-based and intensive care for SARI regardless of causative pathogen,” they write.

 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, described the study as “impressive.” However, he pointed out that the study’s observational design is a limitation.

“One can never be absolutely certain about the interpretation of findings of an observational study. What the research can’t tell us is what caused the increased psychiatric risks for people hospitalized with COVID-19 or some other serious respiratory disease,” Dr. McConway said.

“It can’t tell us what might happen in the future, when, we all hope, many fewer are being hospitalized with COVID-19 than was the case in those first two waves, and the current backlog of provision of some health services has decreased,” he added.

“So we can’t just say that, in general, serious COVID-19 has much the same neuropsychiatric consequences as other very serious respiratory illness. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t,” Dr. McConway cautioned.

Max Taquet, PhD, with the University of Oxford, noted that the study is limited to hospitalized adult patients, leaving open the question of risk in nonhospitalized individuals – which is the overwhelming majority of patients with COVID-19 – or in children.

Whether the neuropsychiatric risks have remained the same since the emergence of the Omicron variant also remains “an open question since all patients in this study were diagnosed before July 2021,” Dr. Taquet said in statement.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre. Dr. Watkinson disclosed grants from the National Institute for Health Research and Sensyne Health outside the submitted work; and serving as chief medical officer for Sensyne Health prior to this work, as well as holding shares in the company. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the UK Science Media Centre and a member of its advisory committee. His comments were provided in his capacity as an independent professional statistician. Dr. Taquet has worked on similar studies trying to identify, quantify, and specify the neurological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19.

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

The neuropsychiatric ramifications of severe COVID-19 infection appear to be no different than for other severe acute respiratory infections (SARI).

Results of a large study showed risks of new neuropsychiatric illness were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving either severe COVID-19 infection or other SARI, compared with the general population.
 

This suggests that disease severity, rather than pathogen, is the most relevant factor in new-onset neuropsychiatric illness, the investigators note.

The risk of new-onset neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection are “substantial, but similar to those after other severe respiratory infections,” study investigator Peter Watkinson, MD, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, told this news organization.

Significant mental health burden

Research has shown a significant burden of neuropsychological illness after severe COVID-19 infection. However, it’s unclear how this risk compares to SARI.

To investigate, Dr. Watkinson and colleagues evaluated electronic health record data on more than 8.3 million adults, including 16,679 (0.02%) who survived a hospital admission for SARI and 32,525 (0.03%) who survived a hospital stay for COVID-19.

Compared with the remaining population, risks of new anxiety disorder, dementia, psychotic disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder diagnoses were significantly and similarly increased in adults surviving hospitalization for either COVID-19 or SARI.

Compared with the wider population, survivors of severe SARI or COVID-19 were also at increased risk of starting treatment with antidepressants, hypnotics/anxiolytics, or antipsychotics.

When comparing survivors of SARI hospitalization to survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization, no significant differences were observed in the postdischarge rates of new-onset anxiety disorder, dementia, depression, or bipolar affective disorder.

The SARI and COVID groups also did not differ in terms of their postdischarge risks of antidepressant or hypnotic/anxiolytic use, but the COVID survivors had a 20% lower risk of starting an antipsychotic.

“In this cohort study, SARI were found to be associated with significant postacute neuropsychiatric morbidity, for which COVID-19 is not distinctly different,” Dr. Watkinson and colleagues write.

“These results may help refine our understanding of the post–severe COVID-19 phenotype and may inform post-discharge support for patients requiring hospital-based and intensive care for SARI regardless of causative pathogen,” they write.

 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics at the Open University in Milton Keynes, England, described the study as “impressive.” However, he pointed out that the study’s observational design is a limitation.

“One can never be absolutely certain about the interpretation of findings of an observational study. What the research can’t tell us is what caused the increased psychiatric risks for people hospitalized with COVID-19 or some other serious respiratory disease,” Dr. McConway said.

“It can’t tell us what might happen in the future, when, we all hope, many fewer are being hospitalized with COVID-19 than was the case in those first two waves, and the current backlog of provision of some health services has decreased,” he added.

“So we can’t just say that, in general, serious COVID-19 has much the same neuropsychiatric consequences as other very serious respiratory illness. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t,” Dr. McConway cautioned.

Max Taquet, PhD, with the University of Oxford, noted that the study is limited to hospitalized adult patients, leaving open the question of risk in nonhospitalized individuals – which is the overwhelming majority of patients with COVID-19 – or in children.

Whether the neuropsychiatric risks have remained the same since the emergence of the Omicron variant also remains “an open question since all patients in this study were diagnosed before July 2021,” Dr. Taquet said in statement.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre. Dr. Watkinson disclosed grants from the National Institute for Health Research and Sensyne Health outside the submitted work; and serving as chief medical officer for Sensyne Health prior to this work, as well as holding shares in the company. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the UK Science Media Centre and a member of its advisory committee. His comments were provided in his capacity as an independent professional statistician. Dr. Taquet has worked on similar studies trying to identify, quantify, and specify the neurological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized ultrathin panties that can be worn to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex.

The underwear, sold as Lorals for Protection, are single-use, vanilla-scented, natural latex panties that cover the genitals and anus and block the transfer of bodily fluids during oral sex, according to the company website. They sell in packages of four for $25.

The FDA didn’t run human clinical trials but granted authorization after the company gave it data about the product, The New York Times reported.

“The FDA’s authorization of this product gives people another option to protect against STIs during oral sex,” said Courtney Lias, PhD, director of the FDA office that led the review of the underwear.

Previously, the FDA authorized oral dams to prevent the spread of STIs during oral sex. Oral dams, sometimes called oral sex condoms, are thin latex barriers that go between one partner’s mouth and the other person’s genitals. The dams haven’t been widely used, partly because a person has to hold the dam in place during sex, unlike the panties.

“They’re extremely unpopular,” Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the Times. “I mean, honestly, could there be anything less sexy than a dental dam?”Melanie Cristol said she came up with the idea for the panties after discovering on her 2014 honeymoon that she had an infection that could be sexually transmitted.

“I wanted to feel sexy and confident and use something that was made with my body and actual sex in mind,” she told the Times.

The panties are made of material about as thin as a condom and form a seal on the thigh to keep fluids inside, she said.

Dr. Marrazzo said the panties are an advancement because there are few options for safe oral sex. She noted that some teenagers have their first sexual experience with oral sex and that the panties could reduce anxiety for people of all ages.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized ultrathin panties that can be worn to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex.

The underwear, sold as Lorals for Protection, are single-use, vanilla-scented, natural latex panties that cover the genitals and anus and block the transfer of bodily fluids during oral sex, according to the company website. They sell in packages of four for $25.

The FDA didn’t run human clinical trials but granted authorization after the company gave it data about the product, The New York Times reported.

“The FDA’s authorization of this product gives people another option to protect against STIs during oral sex,” said Courtney Lias, PhD, director of the FDA office that led the review of the underwear.

Previously, the FDA authorized oral dams to prevent the spread of STIs during oral sex. Oral dams, sometimes called oral sex condoms, are thin latex barriers that go between one partner’s mouth and the other person’s genitals. The dams haven’t been widely used, partly because a person has to hold the dam in place during sex, unlike the panties.

“They’re extremely unpopular,” Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the Times. “I mean, honestly, could there be anything less sexy than a dental dam?”Melanie Cristol said she came up with the idea for the panties after discovering on her 2014 honeymoon that she had an infection that could be sexually transmitted.

“I wanted to feel sexy and confident and use something that was made with my body and actual sex in mind,” she told the Times.

The panties are made of material about as thin as a condom and form a seal on the thigh to keep fluids inside, she said.

Dr. Marrazzo said the panties are an advancement because there are few options for safe oral sex. She noted that some teenagers have their first sexual experience with oral sex and that the panties could reduce anxiety for people of all ages.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized ultrathin panties that can be worn to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex.

The underwear, sold as Lorals for Protection, are single-use, vanilla-scented, natural latex panties that cover the genitals and anus and block the transfer of bodily fluids during oral sex, according to the company website. They sell in packages of four for $25.

The FDA didn’t run human clinical trials but granted authorization after the company gave it data about the product, The New York Times reported.

“The FDA’s authorization of this product gives people another option to protect against STIs during oral sex,” said Courtney Lias, PhD, director of the FDA office that led the review of the underwear.

Previously, the FDA authorized oral dams to prevent the spread of STIs during oral sex. Oral dams, sometimes called oral sex condoms, are thin latex barriers that go between one partner’s mouth and the other person’s genitals. The dams haven’t been widely used, partly because a person has to hold the dam in place during sex, unlike the panties.

“They’re extremely unpopular,” Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the Times. “I mean, honestly, could there be anything less sexy than a dental dam?”Melanie Cristol said she came up with the idea for the panties after discovering on her 2014 honeymoon that she had an infection that could be sexually transmitted.

“I wanted to feel sexy and confident and use something that was made with my body and actual sex in mind,” she told the Times.

The panties are made of material about as thin as a condom and form a seal on the thigh to keep fluids inside, she said.

Dr. Marrazzo said the panties are an advancement because there are few options for safe oral sex. She noted that some teenagers have their first sexual experience with oral sex and that the panties could reduce anxiety for people of all ages.

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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