Infectious Disease Practitioner

Patients who suffer a stroke during hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a dismal prognosis, with more than half dying during the index hospitalization and two-thirds within the first year, a new study shows.

The study – the first to evaluate stroke as an IE-related complication following TAVR in a large multicenter cohort – is published in the May 11 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors, led by David del Val, MD, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, explain that IE after TAVR is a rare but serious complication associated with a high mortality rate. Neurologic events, especially stroke, remain one of the most common and potentially disabling IE-related complications, but until now, no study has attempted to evaluate the predictors of stroke and outcomes in patients with IE following TAVR.

For the current study, the authors analyzed data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry, including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries.

Patients who experienced a stroke during IE admission were compared with patients who did not have a stroke.

Results showed that 57 patients (10%) had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in the causative microorganism between groups. Stroke patients had higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia.

Factors associated with a higher risk for stroke during the index IE hospitalization included stroke before IE, moderate or higher residual aortic regurgitation after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size greater than 8 mm.

The stroke rate was 3.1% in patients with none of these risk factors; 6.1% with one risk factor; 13.1% with two risk factors; 28.9% with three risk factors, and 60% with four risk factors.

“The presence of such factors (particularly in combination) may be considered for determining an earlier and more aggressive (medical or surgical) treatment in these patients,” the researchers say.

IE patients with stroke had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%).

Surgery rates were low (25%) even in the presence of stroke and failed to improve outcomes in this population.

Noting that consensus guidelines for managing patients with IE recommend surgery along with antibiotic treatment for patients developing systemic embolism, particularly stroke, the researchers say their findings suggest that such surgery recommendations may not be extrapolated to TAVR-IE patients, and specific guidelines are warranted for this particular population.

Furthermore, the possibility of early surgery in those patients with factors increasing the risk for stroke should be evaluated in future studies.

The authors note that TAVR has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and is currently moving toward less complex and younger patients with lower surgical risk. Despite the relatively low incidence of IE after TAVR, the number of procedures is expected to grow exponentially, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this disease and its complications is essential to improve outcomes.

They point out that the 10% rate of stroke found in this study is substantially lower, compared with the largest surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis registries, but they suggest that the unique clinical profile of TAVR patients may lead to an underdiagnosis of stroke, with a high proportion of elderly patients who more frequently present with nonspecific symptoms.

They conclude that “IE post-TAVR is associated with a poor prognosis with high in-hospital and late mortality rates. Our study reveals that patients with IE after TAVR complicated by stroke showed an even worse prognosis.”

“The progressive implementation of advanced imaging modalities for early IE diagnosis, especially nuclear imaging, may translate into a better prognosis in coming years. Close attention should be paid to early recognition of stroke-associated factors to improve clinical outcomes,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Vuyisile Nkomo, MD, Daniel DeSimone, MD, and William Miranda, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., say the current study “highlights the devastating consequences of IE after TAVR and the even worse consequences when IE was associated with stroke.”

This points to the critical importance of efforts to prevent IE with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and addressing potential sources of infection (for example, dental screening) before invasive cardiac procedures.

“Patient education is critical in regard to recognizing early signs and symptoms of IE. In particular, patients must be informed to obtain blood cultures with any episode of fever, as identification of bacteremia is critical in the diagnosis of IE,” the editorialists comment.  

Endocarditis should also be suspected in afebrile patients with increasing transcatheter heart valve gradients or new or worsening regurgitation, they state.

Multimodality imaging is important for the early diagnosis of IE to facilitate prompt antibiotic treatment and potentially decrease the risk for IE complications, especially systemic embolization, they add.

“Despite the unequivocal advances in the safety and periprocedural complications of TAVR, IE with and without stroke in this TAVR population remains a dreadful complication,” they conclude.

Dr. Del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who suffer a stroke during hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a dismal prognosis, with more than half dying during the index hospitalization and two-thirds within the first year, a new study shows.

The study – the first to evaluate stroke as an IE-related complication following TAVR in a large multicenter cohort – is published in the May 11 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors, led by David del Val, MD, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, explain that IE after TAVR is a rare but serious complication associated with a high mortality rate. Neurologic events, especially stroke, remain one of the most common and potentially disabling IE-related complications, but until now, no study has attempted to evaluate the predictors of stroke and outcomes in patients with IE following TAVR.

For the current study, the authors analyzed data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry, including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries.

Patients who experienced a stroke during IE admission were compared with patients who did not have a stroke.

Results showed that 57 patients (10%) had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in the causative microorganism between groups. Stroke patients had higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia.

Factors associated with a higher risk for stroke during the index IE hospitalization included stroke before IE, moderate or higher residual aortic regurgitation after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size greater than 8 mm.

The stroke rate was 3.1% in patients with none of these risk factors; 6.1% with one risk factor; 13.1% with two risk factors; 28.9% with three risk factors, and 60% with four risk factors.

“The presence of such factors (particularly in combination) may be considered for determining an earlier and more aggressive (medical or surgical) treatment in these patients,” the researchers say.

IE patients with stroke had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%).

Surgery rates were low (25%) even in the presence of stroke and failed to improve outcomes in this population.

Noting that consensus guidelines for managing patients with IE recommend surgery along with antibiotic treatment for patients developing systemic embolism, particularly stroke, the researchers say their findings suggest that such surgery recommendations may not be extrapolated to TAVR-IE patients, and specific guidelines are warranted for this particular population.

Furthermore, the possibility of early surgery in those patients with factors increasing the risk for stroke should be evaluated in future studies.

The authors note that TAVR has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and is currently moving toward less complex and younger patients with lower surgical risk. Despite the relatively low incidence of IE after TAVR, the number of procedures is expected to grow exponentially, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this disease and its complications is essential to improve outcomes.

They point out that the 10% rate of stroke found in this study is substantially lower, compared with the largest surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis registries, but they suggest that the unique clinical profile of TAVR patients may lead to an underdiagnosis of stroke, with a high proportion of elderly patients who more frequently present with nonspecific symptoms.

They conclude that “IE post-TAVR is associated with a poor prognosis with high in-hospital and late mortality rates. Our study reveals that patients with IE after TAVR complicated by stroke showed an even worse prognosis.”

“The progressive implementation of advanced imaging modalities for early IE diagnosis, especially nuclear imaging, may translate into a better prognosis in coming years. Close attention should be paid to early recognition of stroke-associated factors to improve clinical outcomes,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Vuyisile Nkomo, MD, Daniel DeSimone, MD, and William Miranda, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., say the current study “highlights the devastating consequences of IE after TAVR and the even worse consequences when IE was associated with stroke.”

This points to the critical importance of efforts to prevent IE with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and addressing potential sources of infection (for example, dental screening) before invasive cardiac procedures.

“Patient education is critical in regard to recognizing early signs and symptoms of IE. In particular, patients must be informed to obtain blood cultures with any episode of fever, as identification of bacteremia is critical in the diagnosis of IE,” the editorialists comment.  

Endocarditis should also be suspected in afebrile patients with increasing transcatheter heart valve gradients or new or worsening regurgitation, they state.

Multimodality imaging is important for the early diagnosis of IE to facilitate prompt antibiotic treatment and potentially decrease the risk for IE complications, especially systemic embolization, they add.

“Despite the unequivocal advances in the safety and periprocedural complications of TAVR, IE with and without stroke in this TAVR population remains a dreadful complication,” they conclude.

Dr. Del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who suffer a stroke during hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a dismal prognosis, with more than half dying during the index hospitalization and two-thirds within the first year, a new study shows.

The study – the first to evaluate stroke as an IE-related complication following TAVR in a large multicenter cohort – is published in the May 11 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors, led by David del Val, MD, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, explain that IE after TAVR is a rare but serious complication associated with a high mortality rate. Neurologic events, especially stroke, remain one of the most common and potentially disabling IE-related complications, but until now, no study has attempted to evaluate the predictors of stroke and outcomes in patients with IE following TAVR.

For the current study, the authors analyzed data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry, including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries.

Patients who experienced a stroke during IE admission were compared with patients who did not have a stroke.

Results showed that 57 patients (10%) had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in the causative microorganism between groups. Stroke patients had higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia.

Factors associated with a higher risk for stroke during the index IE hospitalization included stroke before IE, moderate or higher residual aortic regurgitation after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size greater than 8 mm.

The stroke rate was 3.1% in patients with none of these risk factors; 6.1% with one risk factor; 13.1% with two risk factors; 28.9% with three risk factors, and 60% with four risk factors.

“The presence of such factors (particularly in combination) may be considered for determining an earlier and more aggressive (medical or surgical) treatment in these patients,” the researchers say.

IE patients with stroke had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%).

Surgery rates were low (25%) even in the presence of stroke and failed to improve outcomes in this population.

Noting that consensus guidelines for managing patients with IE recommend surgery along with antibiotic treatment for patients developing systemic embolism, particularly stroke, the researchers say their findings suggest that such surgery recommendations may not be extrapolated to TAVR-IE patients, and specific guidelines are warranted for this particular population.

Furthermore, the possibility of early surgery in those patients with factors increasing the risk for stroke should be evaluated in future studies.

The authors note that TAVR has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and is currently moving toward less complex and younger patients with lower surgical risk. Despite the relatively low incidence of IE after TAVR, the number of procedures is expected to grow exponentially, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this disease and its complications is essential to improve outcomes.

They point out that the 10% rate of stroke found in this study is substantially lower, compared with the largest surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis registries, but they suggest that the unique clinical profile of TAVR patients may lead to an underdiagnosis of stroke, with a high proportion of elderly patients who more frequently present with nonspecific symptoms.

They conclude that “IE post-TAVR is associated with a poor prognosis with high in-hospital and late mortality rates. Our study reveals that patients with IE after TAVR complicated by stroke showed an even worse prognosis.”

“The progressive implementation of advanced imaging modalities for early IE diagnosis, especially nuclear imaging, may translate into a better prognosis in coming years. Close attention should be paid to early recognition of stroke-associated factors to improve clinical outcomes,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Vuyisile Nkomo, MD, Daniel DeSimone, MD, and William Miranda, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., say the current study “highlights the devastating consequences of IE after TAVR and the even worse consequences when IE was associated with stroke.”

This points to the critical importance of efforts to prevent IE with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and addressing potential sources of infection (for example, dental screening) before invasive cardiac procedures.

“Patient education is critical in regard to recognizing early signs and symptoms of IE. In particular, patients must be informed to obtain blood cultures with any episode of fever, as identification of bacteremia is critical in the diagnosis of IE,” the editorialists comment.  

Endocarditis should also be suspected in afebrile patients with increasing transcatheter heart valve gradients or new or worsening regurgitation, they state.

Multimodality imaging is important for the early diagnosis of IE to facilitate prompt antibiotic treatment and potentially decrease the risk for IE complications, especially systemic embolization, they add.

“Despite the unequivocal advances in the safety and periprocedural complications of TAVR, IE with and without stroke in this TAVR population remains a dreadful complication,” they conclude.

Dr. Del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Jack. S. Remington, MD, the Stanford (Calif.) University clinical scientist who developed a test to identify babies at risk for dangerous toxoplasmosis, died on April 8 at the age of 90.

Dr. Remington was professor emeritus of infectious diseases at Stanford Medicine. A legendary researcher, Dr. Remington was described by colleagues and trainees as a dogged clinician. Known as “Stat Jack” for his sense of urgency, he retired in 2005.

He died after a fall; it was the last of many. When he wasn’t treating patients or conducting research, Dr. Remington was often rock climbing. Friends said he had broken many bones but was always a passionate climber.

Dr. Remington was retired when Upinder Singh, MD, arrived at Stanford. Now she is chief of infectious diseases and geographic medicine at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Singh said in an interview that Dr. Remington was a bright, forward-thinking scientist.

Dr. Remington conducted research at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), part of the Sutter Health network. He ran a toxoplasmosis serology lab, and it was his baby, Dr. Singh said. In 2019, it was renamed for him: The Dr Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics.

While he conducted research at PAMF, he treated patients at Stanford, where he could see his research benefit them.

“What he held closest to his heart was that scientific endeavors should help patients,” Dr. Singh said.

Born in Chicago in 1931, Dr. Remington did his undergraduate work at Loyola University in Chicago and the University of Illinois, where he graduated from medical school in 1956, according to a statement from Stanford. He spent 2 years as a senior assistant surgeon for the United States Public Health Service and as a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

There, he conducted key research on Toxoplasma gondii, a usually dormant parasite that poses a serious risk to anyone with a compromised immune system – a group that includes babies, transplant recipients, and people with HIV. T gondii is the reason pregnant women are told not to clean out litter boxes, because it can be spread through cat feces. Humans also contract toxoplasmosis by eating contaminated meat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300 to 4,000 babies are exposed each year and develop toxoplasmosis. Often symptom-free for a period, the children can go on to develop vision problems or developmental delays.

Dr. Remington developed a blood test that measures a baby’s exposure and, therefore, risk for toxoplasmosis. According to the Stanford announcement, “The test distinguished between antibodies that a newborn has passively acquired from its mother through the placental barrier and antibodies that indicate a newborn has actually been infected in the womb by pathogens, notably T. gondii, that had been residing in the mother’s tissues. The latter case meant a baby needed immediate treatment to stave off active toxoplasmosis.”

Dr. Remington also led clinical trials and developed drugs to treat the condition. Stanford reports that he authored or coauthored more than 600 articles and held 11 patents.

He also coauthored the most authoritative textbook in the field. Remington and Klein’s Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant is now in its eighth edition.

Dr. Remington was elected a fellow of the American College of Physicians in 1966, the London-based Royal College of Physicians in 1999, the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000, and the American Academy of Microbiology in 2000. He was a past president of the Western Society for Clinical Research, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the International Immunocompromised Host Society.

Friends and colleagues remember him as a dedicated mentor, evidenced by the many trainees who traveled to his 70th birthday party, said Philip Pizzo, MD, professor of pediatrics and immunology at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Pizzo, the former dean of the School of Medicine, met Dr. Remington in 1977 after presenting a research paper on the subject of the immunocompromised host at a New York meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. They became lifelong colleagues and friends.

Dr. Remington had his own kind of confidence and self-assurance, Dr. Pizzo said: “He climbed the most challenging rock faces in the world. It takes a certain kind of personality to do that.”

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

Jack. S. Remington, MD, the Stanford (Calif.) University clinical scientist who developed a test to identify babies at risk for dangerous toxoplasmosis, died on April 8 at the age of 90.

Dr. Remington was professor emeritus of infectious diseases at Stanford Medicine. A legendary researcher, Dr. Remington was described by colleagues and trainees as a dogged clinician. Known as “Stat Jack” for his sense of urgency, he retired in 2005.

He died after a fall; it was the last of many. When he wasn’t treating patients or conducting research, Dr. Remington was often rock climbing. Friends said he had broken many bones but was always a passionate climber.

Dr. Remington was retired when Upinder Singh, MD, arrived at Stanford. Now she is chief of infectious diseases and geographic medicine at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Singh said in an interview that Dr. Remington was a bright, forward-thinking scientist.

Dr. Remington conducted research at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), part of the Sutter Health network. He ran a toxoplasmosis serology lab, and it was his baby, Dr. Singh said. In 2019, it was renamed for him: The Dr Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics.

While he conducted research at PAMF, he treated patients at Stanford, where he could see his research benefit them.

“What he held closest to his heart was that scientific endeavors should help patients,” Dr. Singh said.

Born in Chicago in 1931, Dr. Remington did his undergraduate work at Loyola University in Chicago and the University of Illinois, where he graduated from medical school in 1956, according to a statement from Stanford. He spent 2 years as a senior assistant surgeon for the United States Public Health Service and as a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

There, he conducted key research on Toxoplasma gondii, a usually dormant parasite that poses a serious risk to anyone with a compromised immune system – a group that includes babies, transplant recipients, and people with HIV. T gondii is the reason pregnant women are told not to clean out litter boxes, because it can be spread through cat feces. Humans also contract toxoplasmosis by eating contaminated meat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300 to 4,000 babies are exposed each year and develop toxoplasmosis. Often symptom-free for a period, the children can go on to develop vision problems or developmental delays.

Dr. Remington developed a blood test that measures a baby’s exposure and, therefore, risk for toxoplasmosis. According to the Stanford announcement, “The test distinguished between antibodies that a newborn has passively acquired from its mother through the placental barrier and antibodies that indicate a newborn has actually been infected in the womb by pathogens, notably T. gondii, that had been residing in the mother’s tissues. The latter case meant a baby needed immediate treatment to stave off active toxoplasmosis.”

Dr. Remington also led clinical trials and developed drugs to treat the condition. Stanford reports that he authored or coauthored more than 600 articles and held 11 patents.

He also coauthored the most authoritative textbook in the field. Remington and Klein’s Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant is now in its eighth edition.

Dr. Remington was elected a fellow of the American College of Physicians in 1966, the London-based Royal College of Physicians in 1999, the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000, and the American Academy of Microbiology in 2000. He was a past president of the Western Society for Clinical Research, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the International Immunocompromised Host Society.

Friends and colleagues remember him as a dedicated mentor, evidenced by the many trainees who traveled to his 70th birthday party, said Philip Pizzo, MD, professor of pediatrics and immunology at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Pizzo, the former dean of the School of Medicine, met Dr. Remington in 1977 after presenting a research paper on the subject of the immunocompromised host at a New York meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. They became lifelong colleagues and friends.

Dr. Remington had his own kind of confidence and self-assurance, Dr. Pizzo said: “He climbed the most challenging rock faces in the world. It takes a certain kind of personality to do that.”

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

Jack. S. Remington, MD, the Stanford (Calif.) University clinical scientist who developed a test to identify babies at risk for dangerous toxoplasmosis, died on April 8 at the age of 90.

Dr. Remington was professor emeritus of infectious diseases at Stanford Medicine. A legendary researcher, Dr. Remington was described by colleagues and trainees as a dogged clinician. Known as “Stat Jack” for his sense of urgency, he retired in 2005.

He died after a fall; it was the last of many. When he wasn’t treating patients or conducting research, Dr. Remington was often rock climbing. Friends said he had broken many bones but was always a passionate climber.

Dr. Remington was retired when Upinder Singh, MD, arrived at Stanford. Now she is chief of infectious diseases and geographic medicine at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Singh said in an interview that Dr. Remington was a bright, forward-thinking scientist.

Dr. Remington conducted research at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), part of the Sutter Health network. He ran a toxoplasmosis serology lab, and it was his baby, Dr. Singh said. In 2019, it was renamed for him: The Dr Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics.

While he conducted research at PAMF, he treated patients at Stanford, where he could see his research benefit them.

“What he held closest to his heart was that scientific endeavors should help patients,” Dr. Singh said.

Born in Chicago in 1931, Dr. Remington did his undergraduate work at Loyola University in Chicago and the University of Illinois, where he graduated from medical school in 1956, according to a statement from Stanford. He spent 2 years as a senior assistant surgeon for the United States Public Health Service and as a researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

There, he conducted key research on Toxoplasma gondii, a usually dormant parasite that poses a serious risk to anyone with a compromised immune system – a group that includes babies, transplant recipients, and people with HIV. T gondii is the reason pregnant women are told not to clean out litter boxes, because it can be spread through cat feces. Humans also contract toxoplasmosis by eating contaminated meat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300 to 4,000 babies are exposed each year and develop toxoplasmosis. Often symptom-free for a period, the children can go on to develop vision problems or developmental delays.

Dr. Remington developed a blood test that measures a baby’s exposure and, therefore, risk for toxoplasmosis. According to the Stanford announcement, “The test distinguished between antibodies that a newborn has passively acquired from its mother through the placental barrier and antibodies that indicate a newborn has actually been infected in the womb by pathogens, notably T. gondii, that had been residing in the mother’s tissues. The latter case meant a baby needed immediate treatment to stave off active toxoplasmosis.”

Dr. Remington also led clinical trials and developed drugs to treat the condition. Stanford reports that he authored or coauthored more than 600 articles and held 11 patents.

He also coauthored the most authoritative textbook in the field. Remington and Klein’s Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant is now in its eighth edition.

Dr. Remington was elected a fellow of the American College of Physicians in 1966, the London-based Royal College of Physicians in 1999, the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000, and the American Academy of Microbiology in 2000. He was a past president of the Western Society for Clinical Research, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the International Immunocompromised Host Society.

Friends and colleagues remember him as a dedicated mentor, evidenced by the many trainees who traveled to his 70th birthday party, said Philip Pizzo, MD, professor of pediatrics and immunology at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Pizzo, the former dean of the School of Medicine, met Dr. Remington in 1977 after presenting a research paper on the subject of the immunocompromised host at a New York meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. They became lifelong colleagues and friends.

Dr. Remington had his own kind of confidence and self-assurance, Dr. Pizzo said: “He climbed the most challenging rock faces in the world. It takes a certain kind of personality to do that.”

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in children are trending downward again after dropping for a second consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite that drop, however, children made up a larger share (22.4%) of all cases reported during the week of April 23-29, compared with the previous week, when the proportion reached what was then a pandemic high of 20.8%, based on data in the weekly AAP/CHA report.

New cases totaled 71,649 for the week of April 23-29, down by 10.3% from the week before and by 19.0% over this most recent 2-week decline, but still a ways to go before reaching the low point of the year (52,695) recorded during the second week of March, the report shows.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, just over 3.78 million children have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, which is 13.8% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The overall rate of COVID-19 has reached 5,026 cases per 100,000 children, or 5% of the total pediatric population, although there is considerable variation among the states regarding age ranges used to define child cases. Most states use a range of 0-17 or 0-19 years, but Florida and Utah use a range of 0-14 years and South Carolina and Tennessee go with 0-20, the AAP and CHA noted.

There is also much variation between the states when it comes to cumulative child COVID-19 rates, with the lowest rate reported in Hawaii (1,264 per 100,000) and the highest in North Dakota (9,416 per 100,000). The lowest proportion of child cases to all cases is found in Florida (8.7%) and the highest in Vermont (22.2%), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-19–related deaths was 303 as of April 29, up by 7 from the previous week in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are reporting mortality data by age. The proportion of child deaths to child cases remains at 0.01%, and children represent just 0.06% of all COVID-19 deaths, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children are trending downward again after dropping for a second consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite that drop, however, children made up a larger share (22.4%) of all cases reported during the week of April 23-29, compared with the previous week, when the proportion reached what was then a pandemic high of 20.8%, based on data in the weekly AAP/CHA report.

New cases totaled 71,649 for the week of April 23-29, down by 10.3% from the week before and by 19.0% over this most recent 2-week decline, but still a ways to go before reaching the low point of the year (52,695) recorded during the second week of March, the report shows.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, just over 3.78 million children have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, which is 13.8% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The overall rate of COVID-19 has reached 5,026 cases per 100,000 children, or 5% of the total pediatric population, although there is considerable variation among the states regarding age ranges used to define child cases. Most states use a range of 0-17 or 0-19 years, but Florida and Utah use a range of 0-14 years and South Carolina and Tennessee go with 0-20, the AAP and CHA noted.

There is also much variation between the states when it comes to cumulative child COVID-19 rates, with the lowest rate reported in Hawaii (1,264 per 100,000) and the highest in North Dakota (9,416 per 100,000). The lowest proportion of child cases to all cases is found in Florida (8.7%) and the highest in Vermont (22.2%), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-19–related deaths was 303 as of April 29, up by 7 from the previous week in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are reporting mortality data by age. The proportion of child deaths to child cases remains at 0.01%, and children represent just 0.06% of all COVID-19 deaths, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children are trending downward again after dropping for a second consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite that drop, however, children made up a larger share (22.4%) of all cases reported during the week of April 23-29, compared with the previous week, when the proportion reached what was then a pandemic high of 20.8%, based on data in the weekly AAP/CHA report.

New cases totaled 71,649 for the week of April 23-29, down by 10.3% from the week before and by 19.0% over this most recent 2-week decline, but still a ways to go before reaching the low point of the year (52,695) recorded during the second week of March, the report shows.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, just over 3.78 million children have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, which is 13.8% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The overall rate of COVID-19 has reached 5,026 cases per 100,000 children, or 5% of the total pediatric population, although there is considerable variation among the states regarding age ranges used to define child cases. Most states use a range of 0-17 or 0-19 years, but Florida and Utah use a range of 0-14 years and South Carolina and Tennessee go with 0-20, the AAP and CHA noted.

There is also much variation between the states when it comes to cumulative child COVID-19 rates, with the lowest rate reported in Hawaii (1,264 per 100,000) and the highest in North Dakota (9,416 per 100,000). The lowest proportion of child cases to all cases is found in Florida (8.7%) and the highest in Vermont (22.2%), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-19–related deaths was 303 as of April 29, up by 7 from the previous week in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are reporting mortality data by age. The proportion of child deaths to child cases remains at 0.01%, and children represent just 0.06% of all COVID-19 deaths, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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