Infectious Disease Practitioner

Most people hear “firm handshake” and automatically think “business world.” A cursory search reveals articles with titles like “Seven Super-Revealing Things Your Handshake Said About You” (Forbes) and “How a Handshake Can Tell You Everything You Need to Know About a Person” (Inc).

Those in the know, however, understand what a handshake really reveals: Current health and vitality. The amount of force that can be generated by the hand is a valid proxy for total-body strength. And total-body strength is one key to healthy aging.

Body temperature, weight, heart rate, and blood pressure inform any patient appointment. Should physicians include grip strength in that group?

Grip-strength testing is easy, fast, and noninvasive. It can be monitored over time. All it requires is a handgrip dynamometer, a tool that may cost less than a stethoscope, and a chair.

“Many studies have looked at strength as a predictor of positive health and weakness as a predictor of negative health outcomes,” said Mark Peterson, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who’s worked on dozens of those studies.

Among the health risks associated with low grip strength: type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, depression, functional disability, osteoporosis, and premature death from any cause.

The prognostic merits of grip strength have been documented across continents and cultures. Although most of those studies have focused on older adults, they aren’t the only age group researchers have looked at.

“We have several papers on the value of grip strength for predicting diabetes and cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents,” Dr. Peterson said.
 

Survival of the strongest

The first thing to understand about grip-strength testing is that it’s only partially about grip. It’s mostly about strength. That’s what attracted Dr. Peterson to this line of research.

“I’m a former strength coach, so I wanted to make a case for why strength was important across populations, not just athletes,” he said. “I strongly believe in strength preservation and healthy living as a predictor for longevity.”

Consider a classic study of Swedish army recruits. Because of Sweden’s post–World War II conscription policy, virtually every young male in the country underwent a physical examination to see if they were fit for military service – an exam that included a grip-strength test.

That gave the researchers a database with more than a million participants. They followed up on them decades later through publicly available records.

What they found: The men with the weakest grip strength in their late teens were 20% more likely to have died by their mid-50s, compared with those with moderate to high grip strength. Even suicide rates were 20%-30% higher for the weakest recruits.

There’s a brutal Darwinian logic to the idea that a stronger person with a more powerful grip would enjoy a longer, healthier life. To our ancient ancestors, stronger hands meant they were probably better at everything that aided survival: hunting, fighting, building shelter, as well as bearing, transporting, and rearing children.

Fast forward to the 21st century where we must force ourselves to engage in physical activity. The old rules still apply: Strength aids survival.
 

Grip strength and the aging process

Some of the earliest grip-strength studies used it as a proxy for nutritional status in elderly men and women. Nourishment, in turn, predicted their ability to survive an illness or surgery.

Which makes sense; if an older person isn’t eating enough to maintain their health and vitality, their strength would decline. Declining strength would make them more susceptible to infections, hospitalizations, and postsurgical complications, leading to longer hospital stays, loss of independence, and ultimately a higher risk of death from any cause.

Along those lines, Dr. Peterson’s research team at the University of Michigan found that low grip strength is correlated with faster aging at the cellular level.

The study looked at DNA methylation, which Peterson describes as “a reflection of someone’s exposure to life events.”

For example, someone who smokes will have altered methylation patterns, compared with someone who doesn’t. Same with someone who’s had more exposure to environmental pollution.

Accelerated DNA methylation “means you’re essentially at higher risk for what are traditionally considered age-related chronic conditions,” Dr. Peterson said. Those conditions include Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes, chronic inflammation, and a higher risk for premature mortality.

Those things are also linked to low grip strength, which is linked to higher DNA methylation and faster biological aging.

But there’s still a missing piece of the puzzle: Why, exactly, would the strength of one’s grip be associated with so many health outcomes?
 

Grip strength and muscle function

“Declining muscle function is the first step of the disabling process,” said Ryan McGrath, PhD, an assistant professor at North Dakota State University, Fargo. “That’s what you can measure with a handgrip test. It helps you identify individuals at risk for the next step of the process, which is declines in physical performance.”

Dr. McGrath got involved in grip-strength research as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, where he worked with Peterson. Like his mentor, he’s published multiple studies using data obtained with a handgrip dynamometer.

“It can be a nice tool for assessing muscle function and muscle strength,” he explained. Because the test is so easy to administer – you sit in a chair with your arm at your side and your elbow bent 90 degrees, and squeeze the device as hard as you can – researchers can work with large groups of study participants and come away with statistically powerful data.

“There are a lot of health outcomes it’s associated with,” Dr. McGrath added, “which is one of its greatest strengths and at the same time one of its key limitations.”

He compared the dynamometer with a tire gauge. Just as a tire gauge can alert you to a loss of air pressure without revealing the source of the leak, a dynamometer can’t tell you why your grip strength is deflated.

“It’s hard to specify the prognostic value,” he said. “You don’t know the next steps to take. As a standalone measurement, that’s a concern.”

That’s why his current research goes beyond simple tests of maximum grip strength to more sophisticated measurements of the rate of force development (how fast you can express strength), repeatability (how much your strength declines from your first to your second or third squeeze), and asymmetry (how big a gap there is between your right- and left-hand strength).

Any of those measures could detect a potential neural or neuromuscular issue.

In a 2020 study, for example, Dr. McGrath and his team at NDSU showed that older adults with both weakness and asymmetry in grip-strength tests were nearly four times more likely to experience functional limitations. Those limitations could affect their ability to do anything from routine chores to keeping themselves clean and fed.
 

Waging war on weakness

Using dynamometer readings, the generally accepted cutoffs for low grip strength are 26 kg for an adult male and 16 kg for a female.

But that’s way too simple, Dr. Peterson said.

For one thing, age matters. Grip strength typically peaks for men in their late 20s and declines rapidly in middle age and beyond. For women, it plateaus in their 20s and gently declines until their 50s. So, at minimum, the age-based standards included with a dynamometer should be consulted.

Another caveat: Dr. Peterson said grip strength tests aren’t very meaningful for people who actively train for strength, though he suggests dedicated athletes make up a relatively small percentage of the population – even as low as 10%.

The size of the person taking the test is also important.

“You absolutely must account for body mass in the context of understanding how grip strength, or any strength measure, is reflective of health and function,” Dr. Peterson said.

To calculate strength-weight ratio, which Dr. Peterson calls “normalized grip strength,” divide grip strength in kilograms by body weight in kilograms. For men, a ratio greater than 0.70 puts them in the higher percentiles. For women it’s 0.50.

And if the results suggest that the person in question is objectively weak? “For me, that’s easy,” Dr. Peterson said. “They need to exercise.”

Common sense suggests doing a lot of forearm exercises for grip strength. Not so, said Dr. Peterson. The strength of hand and forearm muscles reflects what they can do along with all other muscles moving together.

A 2019 study found that, for older adults, a variety of exercise programs can lead to modest but meaningful increases in participants’ grip strength – and they don’t necessarily have to include actual gripping exercises. The programs ranged from tai chi to water aerobics to walking, stretching, and all kinds of resistance training.

Dr. Peterson’s advice to everyone is pretty straightforward: Get stronger. It doesn’t really matter how you do it, or how much strength you ultimately gain. Even a little more strength means a little less weakness, and a little more life.

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

Most people hear “firm handshake” and automatically think “business world.” A cursory search reveals articles with titles like “Seven Super-Revealing Things Your Handshake Said About You” (Forbes) and “How a Handshake Can Tell You Everything You Need to Know About a Person” (Inc).

Those in the know, however, understand what a handshake really reveals: Current health and vitality. The amount of force that can be generated by the hand is a valid proxy for total-body strength. And total-body strength is one key to healthy aging.

Body temperature, weight, heart rate, and blood pressure inform any patient appointment. Should physicians include grip strength in that group?

Grip-strength testing is easy, fast, and noninvasive. It can be monitored over time. All it requires is a handgrip dynamometer, a tool that may cost less than a stethoscope, and a chair.

“Many studies have looked at strength as a predictor of positive health and weakness as a predictor of negative health outcomes,” said Mark Peterson, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who’s worked on dozens of those studies.

Among the health risks associated with low grip strength: type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, depression, functional disability, osteoporosis, and premature death from any cause.

The prognostic merits of grip strength have been documented across continents and cultures. Although most of those studies have focused on older adults, they aren’t the only age group researchers have looked at.

“We have several papers on the value of grip strength for predicting diabetes and cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents,” Dr. Peterson said.
 

Survival of the strongest

The first thing to understand about grip-strength testing is that it’s only partially about grip. It’s mostly about strength. That’s what attracted Dr. Peterson to this line of research.

“I’m a former strength coach, so I wanted to make a case for why strength was important across populations, not just athletes,” he said. “I strongly believe in strength preservation and healthy living as a predictor for longevity.”

Consider a classic study of Swedish army recruits. Because of Sweden’s post–World War II conscription policy, virtually every young male in the country underwent a physical examination to see if they were fit for military service – an exam that included a grip-strength test.

That gave the researchers a database with more than a million participants. They followed up on them decades later through publicly available records.

What they found: The men with the weakest grip strength in their late teens were 20% more likely to have died by their mid-50s, compared with those with moderate to high grip strength. Even suicide rates were 20%-30% higher for the weakest recruits.

There’s a brutal Darwinian logic to the idea that a stronger person with a more powerful grip would enjoy a longer, healthier life. To our ancient ancestors, stronger hands meant they were probably better at everything that aided survival: hunting, fighting, building shelter, as well as bearing, transporting, and rearing children.

Fast forward to the 21st century where we must force ourselves to engage in physical activity. The old rules still apply: Strength aids survival.
 

Grip strength and the aging process

Some of the earliest grip-strength studies used it as a proxy for nutritional status in elderly men and women. Nourishment, in turn, predicted their ability to survive an illness or surgery.

Which makes sense; if an older person isn’t eating enough to maintain their health and vitality, their strength would decline. Declining strength would make them more susceptible to infections, hospitalizations, and postsurgical complications, leading to longer hospital stays, loss of independence, and ultimately a higher risk of death from any cause.

Along those lines, Dr. Peterson’s research team at the University of Michigan found that low grip strength is correlated with faster aging at the cellular level.

The study looked at DNA methylation, which Peterson describes as “a reflection of someone’s exposure to life events.”

For example, someone who smokes will have altered methylation patterns, compared with someone who doesn’t. Same with someone who’s had more exposure to environmental pollution.

Accelerated DNA methylation “means you’re essentially at higher risk for what are traditionally considered age-related chronic conditions,” Dr. Peterson said. Those conditions include Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes, chronic inflammation, and a higher risk for premature mortality.

Those things are also linked to low grip strength, which is linked to higher DNA methylation and faster biological aging.

But there’s still a missing piece of the puzzle: Why, exactly, would the strength of one’s grip be associated with so many health outcomes?
 

Grip strength and muscle function

“Declining muscle function is the first step of the disabling process,” said Ryan McGrath, PhD, an assistant professor at North Dakota State University, Fargo. “That’s what you can measure with a handgrip test. It helps you identify individuals at risk for the next step of the process, which is declines in physical performance.”

Dr. McGrath got involved in grip-strength research as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, where he worked with Peterson. Like his mentor, he’s published multiple studies using data obtained with a handgrip dynamometer.

“It can be a nice tool for assessing muscle function and muscle strength,” he explained. Because the test is so easy to administer – you sit in a chair with your arm at your side and your elbow bent 90 degrees, and squeeze the device as hard as you can – researchers can work with large groups of study participants and come away with statistically powerful data.

“There are a lot of health outcomes it’s associated with,” Dr. McGrath added, “which is one of its greatest strengths and at the same time one of its key limitations.”

He compared the dynamometer with a tire gauge. Just as a tire gauge can alert you to a loss of air pressure without revealing the source of the leak, a dynamometer can’t tell you why your grip strength is deflated.

“It’s hard to specify the prognostic value,” he said. “You don’t know the next steps to take. As a standalone measurement, that’s a concern.”

That’s why his current research goes beyond simple tests of maximum grip strength to more sophisticated measurements of the rate of force development (how fast you can express strength), repeatability (how much your strength declines from your first to your second or third squeeze), and asymmetry (how big a gap there is between your right- and left-hand strength).

Any of those measures could detect a potential neural or neuromuscular issue.

In a 2020 study, for example, Dr. McGrath and his team at NDSU showed that older adults with both weakness and asymmetry in grip-strength tests were nearly four times more likely to experience functional limitations. Those limitations could affect their ability to do anything from routine chores to keeping themselves clean and fed.
 

Waging war on weakness

Using dynamometer readings, the generally accepted cutoffs for low grip strength are 26 kg for an adult male and 16 kg for a female.

But that’s way too simple, Dr. Peterson said.

For one thing, age matters. Grip strength typically peaks for men in their late 20s and declines rapidly in middle age and beyond. For women, it plateaus in their 20s and gently declines until their 50s. So, at minimum, the age-based standards included with a dynamometer should be consulted.

Another caveat: Dr. Peterson said grip strength tests aren’t very meaningful for people who actively train for strength, though he suggests dedicated athletes make up a relatively small percentage of the population – even as low as 10%.

The size of the person taking the test is also important.

“You absolutely must account for body mass in the context of understanding how grip strength, or any strength measure, is reflective of health and function,” Dr. Peterson said.

To calculate strength-weight ratio, which Dr. Peterson calls “normalized grip strength,” divide grip strength in kilograms by body weight in kilograms. For men, a ratio greater than 0.70 puts them in the higher percentiles. For women it’s 0.50.

And if the results suggest that the person in question is objectively weak? “For me, that’s easy,” Dr. Peterson said. “They need to exercise.”

Common sense suggests doing a lot of forearm exercises for grip strength. Not so, said Dr. Peterson. The strength of hand and forearm muscles reflects what they can do along with all other muscles moving together.

A 2019 study found that, for older adults, a variety of exercise programs can lead to modest but meaningful increases in participants’ grip strength – and they don’t necessarily have to include actual gripping exercises. The programs ranged from tai chi to water aerobics to walking, stretching, and all kinds of resistance training.

Dr. Peterson’s advice to everyone is pretty straightforward: Get stronger. It doesn’t really matter how you do it, or how much strength you ultimately gain. Even a little more strength means a little less weakness, and a little more life.

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

Most people hear “firm handshake” and automatically think “business world.” A cursory search reveals articles with titles like “Seven Super-Revealing Things Your Handshake Said About You” (Forbes) and “How a Handshake Can Tell You Everything You Need to Know About a Person” (Inc).

Those in the know, however, understand what a handshake really reveals: Current health and vitality. The amount of force that can be generated by the hand is a valid proxy for total-body strength. And total-body strength is one key to healthy aging.

Body temperature, weight, heart rate, and blood pressure inform any patient appointment. Should physicians include grip strength in that group?

Grip-strength testing is easy, fast, and noninvasive. It can be monitored over time. All it requires is a handgrip dynamometer, a tool that may cost less than a stethoscope, and a chair.

“Many studies have looked at strength as a predictor of positive health and weakness as a predictor of negative health outcomes,” said Mark Peterson, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who’s worked on dozens of those studies.

Among the health risks associated with low grip strength: type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, depression, functional disability, osteoporosis, and premature death from any cause.

The prognostic merits of grip strength have been documented across continents and cultures. Although most of those studies have focused on older adults, they aren’t the only age group researchers have looked at.

“We have several papers on the value of grip strength for predicting diabetes and cardiovascular disease in children and adolescents,” Dr. Peterson said.
 

Survival of the strongest

The first thing to understand about grip-strength testing is that it’s only partially about grip. It’s mostly about strength. That’s what attracted Dr. Peterson to this line of research.

“I’m a former strength coach, so I wanted to make a case for why strength was important across populations, not just athletes,” he said. “I strongly believe in strength preservation and healthy living as a predictor for longevity.”

Consider a classic study of Swedish army recruits. Because of Sweden’s post–World War II conscription policy, virtually every young male in the country underwent a physical examination to see if they were fit for military service – an exam that included a grip-strength test.

That gave the researchers a database with more than a million participants. They followed up on them decades later through publicly available records.

What they found: The men with the weakest grip strength in their late teens were 20% more likely to have died by their mid-50s, compared with those with moderate to high grip strength. Even suicide rates were 20%-30% higher for the weakest recruits.

There’s a brutal Darwinian logic to the idea that a stronger person with a more powerful grip would enjoy a longer, healthier life. To our ancient ancestors, stronger hands meant they were probably better at everything that aided survival: hunting, fighting, building shelter, as well as bearing, transporting, and rearing children.

Fast forward to the 21st century where we must force ourselves to engage in physical activity. The old rules still apply: Strength aids survival.
 

Grip strength and the aging process

Some of the earliest grip-strength studies used it as a proxy for nutritional status in elderly men and women. Nourishment, in turn, predicted their ability to survive an illness or surgery.

Which makes sense; if an older person isn’t eating enough to maintain their health and vitality, their strength would decline. Declining strength would make them more susceptible to infections, hospitalizations, and postsurgical complications, leading to longer hospital stays, loss of independence, and ultimately a higher risk of death from any cause.

Along those lines, Dr. Peterson’s research team at the University of Michigan found that low grip strength is correlated with faster aging at the cellular level.

The study looked at DNA methylation, which Peterson describes as “a reflection of someone’s exposure to life events.”

For example, someone who smokes will have altered methylation patterns, compared with someone who doesn’t. Same with someone who’s had more exposure to environmental pollution.

Accelerated DNA methylation “means you’re essentially at higher risk for what are traditionally considered age-related chronic conditions,” Dr. Peterson said. Those conditions include Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes, chronic inflammation, and a higher risk for premature mortality.

Those things are also linked to low grip strength, which is linked to higher DNA methylation and faster biological aging.

But there’s still a missing piece of the puzzle: Why, exactly, would the strength of one’s grip be associated with so many health outcomes?
 

Grip strength and muscle function

“Declining muscle function is the first step of the disabling process,” said Ryan McGrath, PhD, an assistant professor at North Dakota State University, Fargo. “That’s what you can measure with a handgrip test. It helps you identify individuals at risk for the next step of the process, which is declines in physical performance.”

Dr. McGrath got involved in grip-strength research as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan, where he worked with Peterson. Like his mentor, he’s published multiple studies using data obtained with a handgrip dynamometer.

“It can be a nice tool for assessing muscle function and muscle strength,” he explained. Because the test is so easy to administer – you sit in a chair with your arm at your side and your elbow bent 90 degrees, and squeeze the device as hard as you can – researchers can work with large groups of study participants and come away with statistically powerful data.

“There are a lot of health outcomes it’s associated with,” Dr. McGrath added, “which is one of its greatest strengths and at the same time one of its key limitations.”

He compared the dynamometer with a tire gauge. Just as a tire gauge can alert you to a loss of air pressure without revealing the source of the leak, a dynamometer can’t tell you why your grip strength is deflated.

“It’s hard to specify the prognostic value,” he said. “You don’t know the next steps to take. As a standalone measurement, that’s a concern.”

That’s why his current research goes beyond simple tests of maximum grip strength to more sophisticated measurements of the rate of force development (how fast you can express strength), repeatability (how much your strength declines from your first to your second or third squeeze), and asymmetry (how big a gap there is between your right- and left-hand strength).

Any of those measures could detect a potential neural or neuromuscular issue.

In a 2020 study, for example, Dr. McGrath and his team at NDSU showed that older adults with both weakness and asymmetry in grip-strength tests were nearly four times more likely to experience functional limitations. Those limitations could affect their ability to do anything from routine chores to keeping themselves clean and fed.
 

Waging war on weakness

Using dynamometer readings, the generally accepted cutoffs for low grip strength are 26 kg for an adult male and 16 kg for a female.

But that’s way too simple, Dr. Peterson said.

For one thing, age matters. Grip strength typically peaks for men in their late 20s and declines rapidly in middle age and beyond. For women, it plateaus in their 20s and gently declines until their 50s. So, at minimum, the age-based standards included with a dynamometer should be consulted.

Another caveat: Dr. Peterson said grip strength tests aren’t very meaningful for people who actively train for strength, though he suggests dedicated athletes make up a relatively small percentage of the population – even as low as 10%.

The size of the person taking the test is also important.

“You absolutely must account for body mass in the context of understanding how grip strength, or any strength measure, is reflective of health and function,” Dr. Peterson said.

To calculate strength-weight ratio, which Dr. Peterson calls “normalized grip strength,” divide grip strength in kilograms by body weight in kilograms. For men, a ratio greater than 0.70 puts them in the higher percentiles. For women it’s 0.50.

And if the results suggest that the person in question is objectively weak? “For me, that’s easy,” Dr. Peterson said. “They need to exercise.”

Common sense suggests doing a lot of forearm exercises for grip strength. Not so, said Dr. Peterson. The strength of hand and forearm muscles reflects what they can do along with all other muscles moving together.

A 2019 study found that, for older adults, a variety of exercise programs can lead to modest but meaningful increases in participants’ grip strength – and they don’t necessarily have to include actual gripping exercises. The programs ranged from tai chi to water aerobics to walking, stretching, and all kinds of resistance training.

Dr. Peterson’s advice to everyone is pretty straightforward: Get stronger. It doesn’t really matter how you do it, or how much strength you ultimately gain. Even a little more strength means a little less weakness, and a little more life.

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

A new lawsuit from a woman with type 2 diabetes alleges that the makers of the drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro did not provide adequate warnings for the severity of stomach problems caused by the popular medicines.

The two drugs, which are Food and Drug Administration approved to treat type 2 diabetes, have become well known for their weight loss properties. Ozempic is made by Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro is made by Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co.

In the lawsuit, Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, asserts that she was “severely injured” after using Ozempic and Mounjaro and that the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the drugs’ risk of causing vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

The prescribing labels for Mounjaro and Ozempic state that each “delays gastric emptying” and warn of the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions. The prescribing labels for both drugs state that the most common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The Ozempic label does not mention gastroparesis, and the Mounjaro label states that the drug has not been studied in people with the condition and is therefore not recommended for people who have it. 

Ms. Bjorklund has not been diagnosed with gastroparesis, but her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition, her lawyer, Paul Pennock, told NBC News.

Ms. Bjorklund used Ozempic for more than 1 year, and in July 2023 switched to Mounjaro, the lawsuit states. The document, posted on her law firm’s website, details that using the drugs resulted in “severe vomiting, stomach pain, gastrointestinal burning, being hospitalized for stomach issues on several occasions including visits to the emergency room, [and] teeth falling out due to excessive vomiting, requiring additional medications to alleviate her excessive vomiting, and throwing up whole food hours after eating.”

Novo Nordisk spokesperson Natalia Salomao told NBC News that patient safety is “of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” and she also noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the case, and Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment, NBC News reported.
 

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

A new lawsuit from a woman with type 2 diabetes alleges that the makers of the drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro did not provide adequate warnings for the severity of stomach problems caused by the popular medicines.

The two drugs, which are Food and Drug Administration approved to treat type 2 diabetes, have become well known for their weight loss properties. Ozempic is made by Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro is made by Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co.

In the lawsuit, Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, asserts that she was “severely injured” after using Ozempic and Mounjaro and that the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the drugs’ risk of causing vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

The prescribing labels for Mounjaro and Ozempic state that each “delays gastric emptying” and warn of the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions. The prescribing labels for both drugs state that the most common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The Ozempic label does not mention gastroparesis, and the Mounjaro label states that the drug has not been studied in people with the condition and is therefore not recommended for people who have it. 

Ms. Bjorklund has not been diagnosed with gastroparesis, but her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition, her lawyer, Paul Pennock, told NBC News.

Ms. Bjorklund used Ozempic for more than 1 year, and in July 2023 switched to Mounjaro, the lawsuit states. The document, posted on her law firm’s website, details that using the drugs resulted in “severe vomiting, stomach pain, gastrointestinal burning, being hospitalized for stomach issues on several occasions including visits to the emergency room, [and] teeth falling out due to excessive vomiting, requiring additional medications to alleviate her excessive vomiting, and throwing up whole food hours after eating.”

Novo Nordisk spokesperson Natalia Salomao told NBC News that patient safety is “of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” and she also noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the case, and Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment, NBC News reported.
 

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

A new lawsuit from a woman with type 2 diabetes alleges that the makers of the drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro did not provide adequate warnings for the severity of stomach problems caused by the popular medicines.

The two drugs, which are Food and Drug Administration approved to treat type 2 diabetes, have become well known for their weight loss properties. Ozempic is made by Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro is made by Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co.

In the lawsuit, Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, asserts that she was “severely injured” after using Ozempic and Mounjaro and that the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the drugs’ risk of causing vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

The prescribing labels for Mounjaro and Ozempic state that each “delays gastric emptying” and warn of the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions. The prescribing labels for both drugs state that the most common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The Ozempic label does not mention gastroparesis, and the Mounjaro label states that the drug has not been studied in people with the condition and is therefore not recommended for people who have it. 

Ms. Bjorklund has not been diagnosed with gastroparesis, but her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition, her lawyer, Paul Pennock, told NBC News.

Ms. Bjorklund used Ozempic for more than 1 year, and in July 2023 switched to Mounjaro, the lawsuit states. The document, posted on her law firm’s website, details that using the drugs resulted in “severe vomiting, stomach pain, gastrointestinal burning, being hospitalized for stomach issues on several occasions including visits to the emergency room, [and] teeth falling out due to excessive vomiting, requiring additional medications to alleviate her excessive vomiting, and throwing up whole food hours after eating.”

Novo Nordisk spokesperson Natalia Salomao told NBC News that patient safety is “of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” and she also noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the case, and Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment, NBC News reported.
 

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

NEW YORK – When data were combined from two parallel phase 3 bronchiectasis treatment trials, inhaled colistimethate sodium failed to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, but the disparity in the findings from the two trials, presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference (WBC) 2023, strongly suggests that this therapy is effective after all.

“The totality of the evidence supports a consistent and clinically meaningful benefit [of this therapy] outside of pandemic conditions,” reported Charles Haworth, MD, director, Cambridge Centre for Lung Infection, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, England.

The key phrase is “outside of pandemic conditions.” PROMIS I, which was fully enrolled before the COVID-19 pandemic descended, associated the inhaled therapy with highly significant benefits. PROMIS II, which was initiated later and enrolled 40% of its participants during the pandemic, did not.

The difference between these two trials, which were essentially identical, was the timing, according to Dr. Haworth. By starting later, PROMIS II caught the onset of the pandemic, which he believes introduced numerous problems that defeated the opportunity to show an advantage for the inhaled antibiotic.

Injectable colistimethate sodium, a decades-old formulation of colistin, is already approved in the United States for gram-negative infections and is considered helpful even in challenging diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Positive results from a phase 2 trial with inhaled colistimethate sodium in bronchiectasis patients with P. aeruginosa infection provided the rationale for the phase 3 PROMIS program.

The key entry criterion of PROMIS I and PROMIS II, each with nearly 90 participating study sites, was a history of bronchiectasis and ≥ two P. aeruginosa infections requiring oral therapy or ≥ 1 infection requiring intravenous therapy in the prior 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colistimethate sodium delivered in the proprietary I-neb nebulizer (CMS I-neb) or a matching placebo.

On the primary endpoint of annualized rate of exacerbations, the figures per year were 0.58 for CMS I-neb and 0.95 for placebo in the PROMIS I trial. This produced a rate ratio of 0.65, signaling a significant 35% (P = .00101) reduction in risk. In PROMIS II, the annualized rates of exacerbation were essentially identical in the experimental and control arms (0.089 vs. 0.088; P = .97).

With “no signal of benefit” in the PROMIS II trial, the numerical advantage of CMS I-neb for the combined data did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Haworth reported.

Other endpoints told the same story. For example, the time to first exacerbation was reduced by 41% in PROMIS I (HR, 0.59; P = .0074) but was not reduced significantly (P = .603) in PROMIS II. In PROMIS I, there was a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations associated with CMS I-neb, but the risk ratio of severe infections was slightly but not significantly higher on CMS I-neb in PROMIS II.

There were signals of benefit in PROMIS II. For example, the reductions in P. aeruginosa density were similar in the two studies (P < .00001 in both), and assessment with the Severe Exacerbations and Quality of Life (SQOL) tool associated CMS I-neb with end-of-study improvement in QOL for the experimental arm in both studies.

While Dr. Haworth acknowledged that he recognizes the “issues of post hoc analysis with any data,” he argued that there is compelling evidence that the pandemic “severely disrupted the conduct of the trial,” obscuring a benefit that would have been otherwise shown.

Besides the dramatic reduction in rates of hospitalization during the pandemic, an obstacle for showing differences in exacerbations, and other COVID-related factors with the potential to skew results, Dr. Haworth also provided several sets of objective data to make his point.

Most importantly, Dr. Haworth and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis that combined data from the phase 2 trial, data from PROMIS I, and data from the patients enrolled in PROMIS II prior to the COVID pandemic. In this analysis the rate ratio for annualized exacerbations was a “pretty impressive” 0.65 favoring CMS I-neb. Moreover, in contrast to data from the PROMIS II patients enrolled during the COVID pandemic, the other three sets of data were “remarkably consistent.”

If PROMIS II data collected from patients enrolled during COVID are compared with the other sets of data, they are “the clear outlier,” he asserted.

Many guidelines in Europe, including those from the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society, already recommend inhaled colistin in patients with bronchiectasis for the treatment of P. aeruginosa. Although Dr. Haworth believes that the preponderance of controlled data now argue that CMS I-neb is effective as well as safe (adverse events in the experimental and placebo arms of PROMIS I and II were similar), he is not sure what steps will be taken to confirm a benefit to regulatory authorities. According to Dr. Haworth, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics in the United States.

Referring to Zambon, which funded the trials and is developing CMS I-neb, Dr. Haworth said, “This will be a company decision. There are some logistical hurdles to doing another trial.”

Not least of these hurdles is that clinicians and patients already consider inhalational antibiotics in general and inhaled colistin specifically to be effective for several types of infections, including P. aeruginosa, according to Eva Polverino, MD, PhD, a pulmonologist associated with the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. She said that these drugs are already a standard of care in her own country as well as in many other countries in Europe.

“There has been a loss of equipoise needed to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Dr. Polverino said. In her opinion, the U.S. FDA “should start thinking of other pathways to approval.” She thinks that enrollment in a placebo-controlled trial is no longer appropriate.

Dr. Haworth and Dr. Polverino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW YORK – When data were combined from two parallel phase 3 bronchiectasis treatment trials, inhaled colistimethate sodium failed to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, but the disparity in the findings from the two trials, presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference (WBC) 2023, strongly suggests that this therapy is effective after all.

“The totality of the evidence supports a consistent and clinically meaningful benefit [of this therapy] outside of pandemic conditions,” reported Charles Haworth, MD, director, Cambridge Centre for Lung Infection, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, England.

The key phrase is “outside of pandemic conditions.” PROMIS I, which was fully enrolled before the COVID-19 pandemic descended, associated the inhaled therapy with highly significant benefits. PROMIS II, which was initiated later and enrolled 40% of its participants during the pandemic, did not.

The difference between these two trials, which were essentially identical, was the timing, according to Dr. Haworth. By starting later, PROMIS II caught the onset of the pandemic, which he believes introduced numerous problems that defeated the opportunity to show an advantage for the inhaled antibiotic.

Injectable colistimethate sodium, a decades-old formulation of colistin, is already approved in the United States for gram-negative infections and is considered helpful even in challenging diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Positive results from a phase 2 trial with inhaled colistimethate sodium in bronchiectasis patients with P. aeruginosa infection provided the rationale for the phase 3 PROMIS program.

The key entry criterion of PROMIS I and PROMIS II, each with nearly 90 participating study sites, was a history of bronchiectasis and ≥ two P. aeruginosa infections requiring oral therapy or ≥ 1 infection requiring intravenous therapy in the prior 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colistimethate sodium delivered in the proprietary I-neb nebulizer (CMS I-neb) or a matching placebo.

On the primary endpoint of annualized rate of exacerbations, the figures per year were 0.58 for CMS I-neb and 0.95 for placebo in the PROMIS I trial. This produced a rate ratio of 0.65, signaling a significant 35% (P = .00101) reduction in risk. In PROMIS II, the annualized rates of exacerbation were essentially identical in the experimental and control arms (0.089 vs. 0.088; P = .97).

With “no signal of benefit” in the PROMIS II trial, the numerical advantage of CMS I-neb for the combined data did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Haworth reported.

Other endpoints told the same story. For example, the time to first exacerbation was reduced by 41% in PROMIS I (HR, 0.59; P = .0074) but was not reduced significantly (P = .603) in PROMIS II. In PROMIS I, there was a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations associated with CMS I-neb, but the risk ratio of severe infections was slightly but not significantly higher on CMS I-neb in PROMIS II.

There were signals of benefit in PROMIS II. For example, the reductions in P. aeruginosa density were similar in the two studies (P < .00001 in both), and assessment with the Severe Exacerbations and Quality of Life (SQOL) tool associated CMS I-neb with end-of-study improvement in QOL for the experimental arm in both studies.

While Dr. Haworth acknowledged that he recognizes the “issues of post hoc analysis with any data,” he argued that there is compelling evidence that the pandemic “severely disrupted the conduct of the trial,” obscuring a benefit that would have been otherwise shown.

Besides the dramatic reduction in rates of hospitalization during the pandemic, an obstacle for showing differences in exacerbations, and other COVID-related factors with the potential to skew results, Dr. Haworth also provided several sets of objective data to make his point.

Most importantly, Dr. Haworth and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis that combined data from the phase 2 trial, data from PROMIS I, and data from the patients enrolled in PROMIS II prior to the COVID pandemic. In this analysis the rate ratio for annualized exacerbations was a “pretty impressive” 0.65 favoring CMS I-neb. Moreover, in contrast to data from the PROMIS II patients enrolled during the COVID pandemic, the other three sets of data were “remarkably consistent.”

If PROMIS II data collected from patients enrolled during COVID are compared with the other sets of data, they are “the clear outlier,” he asserted.

Many guidelines in Europe, including those from the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society, already recommend inhaled colistin in patients with bronchiectasis for the treatment of P. aeruginosa. Although Dr. Haworth believes that the preponderance of controlled data now argue that CMS I-neb is effective as well as safe (adverse events in the experimental and placebo arms of PROMIS I and II were similar), he is not sure what steps will be taken to confirm a benefit to regulatory authorities. According to Dr. Haworth, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics in the United States.

Referring to Zambon, which funded the trials and is developing CMS I-neb, Dr. Haworth said, “This will be a company decision. There are some logistical hurdles to doing another trial.”

Not least of these hurdles is that clinicians and patients already consider inhalational antibiotics in general and inhaled colistin specifically to be effective for several types of infections, including P. aeruginosa, according to Eva Polverino, MD, PhD, a pulmonologist associated with the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. She said that these drugs are already a standard of care in her own country as well as in many other countries in Europe.

“There has been a loss of equipoise needed to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Dr. Polverino said. In her opinion, the U.S. FDA “should start thinking of other pathways to approval.” She thinks that enrollment in a placebo-controlled trial is no longer appropriate.

Dr. Haworth and Dr. Polverino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW YORK – When data were combined from two parallel phase 3 bronchiectasis treatment trials, inhaled colistimethate sodium failed to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, but the disparity in the findings from the two trials, presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference (WBC) 2023, strongly suggests that this therapy is effective after all.

“The totality of the evidence supports a consistent and clinically meaningful benefit [of this therapy] outside of pandemic conditions,” reported Charles Haworth, MD, director, Cambridge Centre for Lung Infection, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, England.

The key phrase is “outside of pandemic conditions.” PROMIS I, which was fully enrolled before the COVID-19 pandemic descended, associated the inhaled therapy with highly significant benefits. PROMIS II, which was initiated later and enrolled 40% of its participants during the pandemic, did not.

The difference between these two trials, which were essentially identical, was the timing, according to Dr. Haworth. By starting later, PROMIS II caught the onset of the pandemic, which he believes introduced numerous problems that defeated the opportunity to show an advantage for the inhaled antibiotic.

Injectable colistimethate sodium, a decades-old formulation of colistin, is already approved in the United States for gram-negative infections and is considered helpful even in challenging diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Positive results from a phase 2 trial with inhaled colistimethate sodium in bronchiectasis patients with P. aeruginosa infection provided the rationale for the phase 3 PROMIS program.

The key entry criterion of PROMIS I and PROMIS II, each with nearly 90 participating study sites, was a history of bronchiectasis and ≥ two P. aeruginosa infections requiring oral therapy or ≥ 1 infection requiring intravenous therapy in the prior 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colistimethate sodium delivered in the proprietary I-neb nebulizer (CMS I-neb) or a matching placebo.

On the primary endpoint of annualized rate of exacerbations, the figures per year were 0.58 for CMS I-neb and 0.95 for placebo in the PROMIS I trial. This produced a rate ratio of 0.65, signaling a significant 35% (P = .00101) reduction in risk. In PROMIS II, the annualized rates of exacerbation were essentially identical in the experimental and control arms (0.089 vs. 0.088; P = .97).

With “no signal of benefit” in the PROMIS II trial, the numerical advantage of CMS I-neb for the combined data did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Haworth reported.

Other endpoints told the same story. For example, the time to first exacerbation was reduced by 41% in PROMIS I (HR, 0.59; P = .0074) but was not reduced significantly (P = .603) in PROMIS II. In PROMIS I, there was a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations associated with CMS I-neb, but the risk ratio of severe infections was slightly but not significantly higher on CMS I-neb in PROMIS II.

There were signals of benefit in PROMIS II. For example, the reductions in P. aeruginosa density were similar in the two studies (P < .00001 in both), and assessment with the Severe Exacerbations and Quality of Life (SQOL) tool associated CMS I-neb with end-of-study improvement in QOL for the experimental arm in both studies.

While Dr. Haworth acknowledged that he recognizes the “issues of post hoc analysis with any data,” he argued that there is compelling evidence that the pandemic “severely disrupted the conduct of the trial,” obscuring a benefit that would have been otherwise shown.

Besides the dramatic reduction in rates of hospitalization during the pandemic, an obstacle for showing differences in exacerbations, and other COVID-related factors with the potential to skew results, Dr. Haworth also provided several sets of objective data to make his point.

Most importantly, Dr. Haworth and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis that combined data from the phase 2 trial, data from PROMIS I, and data from the patients enrolled in PROMIS II prior to the COVID pandemic. In this analysis the rate ratio for annualized exacerbations was a “pretty impressive” 0.65 favoring CMS I-neb. Moreover, in contrast to data from the PROMIS II patients enrolled during the COVID pandemic, the other three sets of data were “remarkably consistent.”

If PROMIS II data collected from patients enrolled during COVID are compared with the other sets of data, they are “the clear outlier,” he asserted.

Many guidelines in Europe, including those from the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society, already recommend inhaled colistin in patients with bronchiectasis for the treatment of P. aeruginosa. Although Dr. Haworth believes that the preponderance of controlled data now argue that CMS I-neb is effective as well as safe (adverse events in the experimental and placebo arms of PROMIS I and II were similar), he is not sure what steps will be taken to confirm a benefit to regulatory authorities. According to Dr. Haworth, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics in the United States.

Referring to Zambon, which funded the trials and is developing CMS I-neb, Dr. Haworth said, “This will be a company decision. There are some logistical hurdles to doing another trial.”

Not least of these hurdles is that clinicians and patients already consider inhalational antibiotics in general and inhaled colistin specifically to be effective for several types of infections, including P. aeruginosa, according to Eva Polverino, MD, PhD, a pulmonologist associated with the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. She said that these drugs are already a standard of care in her own country as well as in many other countries in Europe.

“There has been a loss of equipoise needed to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Dr. Polverino said. In her opinion, the U.S. FDA “should start thinking of other pathways to approval.” She thinks that enrollment in a placebo-controlled trial is no longer appropriate.

Dr. Haworth and Dr. Polverino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Coste had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Coste had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neutropenia and radiological findings affected the presentation and diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis in adult patients, based on data from 114 individuals.

Diagnosis of pulmonary mucormycosis (PM), an invasive and potentially life-threatening fungal infection, is often delayed because of its variable presentation, wrote Anne Coste, MD, of La Cavale Blanche Hospital and Brest (France) University Hospital, and colleagues.

Improved diagnostic tools including molecular identification and image-guided lung biopsies are now available in many centers, but relations between underlying conditions, clinical presentations, and diagnostic methods have not been described, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from all cases of PM seen at six hospitals in France between 2008 and 2019. PM cases were based on European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria. Diabetes and trauma were included as additional host factors, and positive serum or tissue PCR (serum qPCR) were included as mycological evidence. Participants also underwent thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans.

The most common underlying conditions among the 114 patients were hematological malignancy (49%), allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (21%), and solid organ transplantation (17%).

Among the 40% of the cases that involved dissemination, the most common sites were the liver (48%), spleen (48%), brain (44%), and kidneys (37%).

A review of radiology findings showed consolidation in a majority of patients (58%), as well as pleural effusion (52%). Other findings included reversed halo sign (RHS, 26%), halo sign (24%), vascular abnormalities (26%), and cavity (23%).

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was present in 46 of 96 patients (50%), and transthoracic lung biopsy was used for diagnosis in 8 of 11 (73%) patients with previous negative BALs.

Seventy patients had neutropenia. Overall, patients with neutropenia were significantly more likely than were those without neutropenia to show an angioinvasive presentation that included both RHS and disease dissemination (P < .05).

In addition, serum qPCR was positive in 42 of 53 patients for whom data were available (79%). Serum qPCR was significantly more likely to be positive in neutropenic patients (91% vs. 62%, P = .02). Positive qPCR was associated with an early diagnosis (P = .03) and treatment onset (P = .01).

Possible reasons for the high rate of disseminated PM in the current study may be the large number of patients with pulmonary involvement, use of body CT data, and availability of autopsy results (for 11% of cases), the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Neutropenia and radiological findings influence disease presentation and contribution of diagnostic tools during PM. Serum qPCR is more contributive in neutropenic patients and BAL examination in nonneutropenic patients. Lung biopsies are highly contributive in case of non-contributive BAL.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the inability to calculate sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic methods, and lack of data on patients with COVID-19, the researchers noted. However, the results provide real-life information for clinicians in centers with current mycological platforms, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Coste had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A growing number of long COVID patients, denied disability benefits despite being unable to work, are turning to the courts for legal relief.

At least 30 lawsuits have been filed seeking legal resolution of disability insurance claims, according to searches of court records. In addition, the Social Security Administration said it has received about 52,000 disability claims tied to SARS-CoV-2 infections, which represents 1% of all applications.

But legal experts say those cases may not reflect the total number of cases that have gone to court. They note many claims are initially dismissed and are not appealed by claimants.

“With this system, they deny two-thirds of initial applications, then people who appeal get denied almost 90% of the time, and then they can appeal before a judge,” said Kevin LaPorte, a Social Security disability attorney at LaPorte Law Firm in Oakland, Calif. “What happens next doesn’t have a lot of precedent because long COVID is a mass disabling event, and we haven’t seen that many of these cases get all the way through the legal system yet.”

As a result, the exact number of long COVID disability claims and the number of these cases going to court isn’t clear, he said.

“It can take a year or more for cases to get to court, and even longer to reach resolution,” Mr. LaPorte added. “I suspect the few cases we’ve heard about at this point are going to be the tip of the iceberg.”

The process is convoluted and can drag on for months with multiple denials and appeals along the way. Many disabled workers find their only recourse is to take insurers to court.

Long COVID patients typically apply for disability benefits through private insurance or Social Security. But the process can drag on for months, so many find their only recourse is to take insurers to court, according to legal experts.

But even in the courts, many encounter delays and hurdles to resolution.

In one of the first federal lawsuits involving long COVID disability benefits, William Abrams, a trial and appellate attorney and active marathon runner, sued Unum Life Insurance seeking long-term disability income. Symptoms included extreme fatigue, brain fog, decreased attention and concentration, and nearly daily fevers, causing him to stop working in April 2020.

His diagnosis wasn’t definitive. Three doctors said he had long COVID, and four said he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Unum cited this inconsistency as a rationale for rejecting his claim. But the court sided with Mr. Abrams, granting him disability income. The court concluded: “Unum may be correct that [the plaintiff] has not been correctly diagnosed. But that does not mean he is not sick. If [the plaintiff’s] complaints, and [the doctor’s] assessments, are to be believed, [the plaintiff] cannot focus for more than a few minutes at a time, making it impossible for [the plaintiff] to perform the varied and complex tasks his job requires.”

Unum said in an emailed statement that the company doesn’t comment on specific claims as a matter of policy, adding that its total payouts for disability claims from March 2020 to February 2022 were 35% higher than prepandemic levels. “In general, disability and leave claims connected to COVID-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering prior to completing the normal qualification period for long-term disability insurance,” Unum said.

Mr. Abrams prevailed in part because he had detailed documentation of the numerous impairments that eventually required him to stop work, said Michelle Roberts of Roberts Disability Law in Oakland, Calif.

He submitted videos of himself taking his temperature to prove he had almost daily fevers, according to court records. He underwent neuropsychological testing, which found learning deficiencies and memory deficits.

Mr. Abrams also submitted statements from a colleague who worked with him on a complex technology patent case involving radiofrequency identification. Before he got COVID, Mr. Abrams “had the analytical ability, legal acumen, and mental energy to attack that learning curve and get up to speed very rapidly,” according to court records.

“The court focused on credulity.” Ms. Roberts said. “There was all this work to be done to show this person was high functioning and ran marathons and worked in an intense, high-pressure occupation but then couldn’t do anything after long COVID.”

Documentation was also crucial in another early federal long COVID disability lawsuit that was filed in 2022 on behalf of Wendy Haut, an educational software sales representative in California who turned to the courts seeking disability income through her company’s employee benefits plan.

Several of Ms. Haut’s doctors documented a detailed list of long COVID symptoms, including “profound fatigue and extreme cognitive difficulties,” that they said prevented her from working as a sales representative or doing any other type of job. A settlement agreement in June 2022 required Reliance Standard Life Insurance to pay Ms. Haut long-term disability benefits, including previously unpaid benefits, according to a report by the advocacy group Pandemic Patients.

Representatives of Reliance Standard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The growing number of workers being sidelined by long COVID makes more claims and more court cases likely. Right now, an estimated 16 million working-age Americans aged 18-65 years have long COVID, and as many as 4 million of them can’t work, according to a July 2023 Census Bureau report.

Uncertainty about the volume of claims in the pipeline is part of what’s driving some insurers to fight long COVID claims, Ms. Roberts said. Another factor is the lack of clarity around how many years people with long COVID may be out of work, particularly if they’re in their 30s or 40s and might be seeking disability income until they reach retirement age.

“Doctors are not always saying that this person will be permanently disabled,” Ms. Roberts said. “If this person doesn’t get better and they’re disabled until retirement age, this could be a payout in the high six or seven figures if a person is very young and was a very high earner.”

Insurance companies routinely deny claims that can’t be backed up with objective measures, such as specific lab test results or clear findings from a physical exam. But there are steps that can increase the odds of a successful claim for long COVID disability benefits, according to New York–based law firm Hiller.

For starters, patients can document COVID test results, and if testing wasn’t conducted, patients can detail the specific symptoms that led to this diagnosis, Hiller advises. Then patients can keep a daily symptom log at home that run lists all of the specific symptoms that occur at different times during the day and night to help establish a pattern of disability. These logs should provide specific details about every job duty patients have and exactly how specific symptoms of long COVID interfere with these duties.

Even though objective testing is hard to come by for long COVID, people should undergo all the tests they can that may help document the frequency or severity of specific symptoms that make it impossible to carry on with business as usual at work, Hiller advises. This may include neuropsychological testing to document brain fog, a cardiopulmonary exercise test to demonstrate chronic fatigue and the inability to exercise, or a tilt table test to measure dizziness.

Seeking a doctor’s diagnosis can be key to collecting disability payments, in or out of court.

All of this puts a lot of pressure on doctors and patients to build strong cases, said Jonathan Whiteson, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health post-COVID care program in New York. “Many physicians are not familiar with the disability benefit paperwork, and so this is a challenge for the doctors to know how to complete and to build the time into their highly scheduled days to take the time needed to complete.

“It’s also challenging because most of the disability benefit forms are ‘generic’ and do not ask specific questions about COVID disability,” Dr. Whiteson added. “It can be like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.”

Still, when it comes to long COVID, completing disability paperwork is increasingly becoming part of standard care, along with managing medication, rehabilitation therapies, and lifestyle changes to navigate daily life with this illness, Dr. Whiteson noted.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, agreed with this assessment.

“I have done letter upon letter of appeal to disability insurance companies,” she said.

Some doctors, however, are reluctant to step up in such cases, in part because no standard diagnostic guidelines exist for long COVID and because it can be frustrating.

“This is the work that is not paid and causes burnout in physicians,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “The paperwork, the fighting with insurance companies, the resubmission of forms for disability all to get what your patient needs – and then it gets denied.

“We will keep doing this because our patients need this disability income in order to live their lives and to afford what they need for recovery,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “But at some point something has to change because this isn’t sustainable.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing number of long COVID patients, denied disability benefits despite being unable to work, are turning to the courts for legal relief.

At least 30 lawsuits have been filed seeking legal resolution of disability insurance claims, according to searches of court records. In addition, the Social Security Administration said it has received about 52,000 disability claims tied to SARS-CoV-2 infections, which represents 1% of all applications.

But legal experts say those cases may not reflect the total number of cases that have gone to court. They note many claims are initially dismissed and are not appealed by claimants.

“With this system, they deny two-thirds of initial applications, then people who appeal get denied almost 90% of the time, and then they can appeal before a judge,” said Kevin LaPorte, a Social Security disability attorney at LaPorte Law Firm in Oakland, Calif. “What happens next doesn’t have a lot of precedent because long COVID is a mass disabling event, and we haven’t seen that many of these cases get all the way through the legal system yet.”

As a result, the exact number of long COVID disability claims and the number of these cases going to court isn’t clear, he said.

“It can take a year or more for cases to get to court, and even longer to reach resolution,” Mr. LaPorte added. “I suspect the few cases we’ve heard about at this point are going to be the tip of the iceberg.”

The process is convoluted and can drag on for months with multiple denials and appeals along the way. Many disabled workers find their only recourse is to take insurers to court.

Long COVID patients typically apply for disability benefits through private insurance or Social Security. But the process can drag on for months, so many find their only recourse is to take insurers to court, according to legal experts.

But even in the courts, many encounter delays and hurdles to resolution.

In one of the first federal lawsuits involving long COVID disability benefits, William Abrams, a trial and appellate attorney and active marathon runner, sued Unum Life Insurance seeking long-term disability income. Symptoms included extreme fatigue, brain fog, decreased attention and concentration, and nearly daily fevers, causing him to stop working in April 2020.

His diagnosis wasn’t definitive. Three doctors said he had long COVID, and four said he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Unum cited this inconsistency as a rationale for rejecting his claim. But the court sided with Mr. Abrams, granting him disability income. The court concluded: “Unum may be correct that [the plaintiff] has not been correctly diagnosed. But that does not mean he is not sick. If [the plaintiff’s] complaints, and [the doctor’s] assessments, are to be believed, [the plaintiff] cannot focus for more than a few minutes at a time, making it impossible for [the plaintiff] to perform the varied and complex tasks his job requires.”

Unum said in an emailed statement that the company doesn’t comment on specific claims as a matter of policy, adding that its total payouts for disability claims from March 2020 to February 2022 were 35% higher than prepandemic levels. “In general, disability and leave claims connected to COVID-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering prior to completing the normal qualification period for long-term disability insurance,” Unum said.

Mr. Abrams prevailed in part because he had detailed documentation of the numerous impairments that eventually required him to stop work, said Michelle Roberts of Roberts Disability Law in Oakland, Calif.

He submitted videos of himself taking his temperature to prove he had almost daily fevers, according to court records. He underwent neuropsychological testing, which found learning deficiencies and memory deficits.

Mr. Abrams also submitted statements from a colleague who worked with him on a complex technology patent case involving radiofrequency identification. Before he got COVID, Mr. Abrams “had the analytical ability, legal acumen, and mental energy to attack that learning curve and get up to speed very rapidly,” according to court records.

“The court focused on credulity.” Ms. Roberts said. “There was all this work to be done to show this person was high functioning and ran marathons and worked in an intense, high-pressure occupation but then couldn’t do anything after long COVID.”

Documentation was also crucial in another early federal long COVID disability lawsuit that was filed in 2022 on behalf of Wendy Haut, an educational software sales representative in California who turned to the courts seeking disability income through her company’s employee benefits plan.

Several of Ms. Haut’s doctors documented a detailed list of long COVID symptoms, including “profound fatigue and extreme cognitive difficulties,” that they said prevented her from working as a sales representative or doing any other type of job. A settlement agreement in June 2022 required Reliance Standard Life Insurance to pay Ms. Haut long-term disability benefits, including previously unpaid benefits, according to a report by the advocacy group Pandemic Patients.

Representatives of Reliance Standard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The growing number of workers being sidelined by long COVID makes more claims and more court cases likely. Right now, an estimated 16 million working-age Americans aged 18-65 years have long COVID, and as many as 4 million of them can’t work, according to a July 2023 Census Bureau report.

Uncertainty about the volume of claims in the pipeline is part of what’s driving some insurers to fight long COVID claims, Ms. Roberts said. Another factor is the lack of clarity around how many years people with long COVID may be out of work, particularly if they’re in their 30s or 40s and might be seeking disability income until they reach retirement age.

“Doctors are not always saying that this person will be permanently disabled,” Ms. Roberts said. “If this person doesn’t get better and they’re disabled until retirement age, this could be a payout in the high six or seven figures if a person is very young and was a very high earner.”

Insurance companies routinely deny claims that can’t be backed up with objective measures, such as specific lab test results or clear findings from a physical exam. But there are steps that can increase the odds of a successful claim for long COVID disability benefits, according to New York–based law firm Hiller.

For starters, patients can document COVID test results, and if testing wasn’t conducted, patients can detail the specific symptoms that led to this diagnosis, Hiller advises. Then patients can keep a daily symptom log at home that run lists all of the specific symptoms that occur at different times during the day and night to help establish a pattern of disability. These logs should provide specific details about every job duty patients have and exactly how specific symptoms of long COVID interfere with these duties.

Even though objective testing is hard to come by for long COVID, people should undergo all the tests they can that may help document the frequency or severity of specific symptoms that make it impossible to carry on with business as usual at work, Hiller advises. This may include neuropsychological testing to document brain fog, a cardiopulmonary exercise test to demonstrate chronic fatigue and the inability to exercise, or a tilt table test to measure dizziness.

Seeking a doctor’s diagnosis can be key to collecting disability payments, in or out of court.

All of this puts a lot of pressure on doctors and patients to build strong cases, said Jonathan Whiteson, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health post-COVID care program in New York. “Many physicians are not familiar with the disability benefit paperwork, and so this is a challenge for the doctors to know how to complete and to build the time into their highly scheduled days to take the time needed to complete.

“It’s also challenging because most of the disability benefit forms are ‘generic’ and do not ask specific questions about COVID disability,” Dr. Whiteson added. “It can be like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.”

Still, when it comes to long COVID, completing disability paperwork is increasingly becoming part of standard care, along with managing medication, rehabilitation therapies, and lifestyle changes to navigate daily life with this illness, Dr. Whiteson noted.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, agreed with this assessment.

“I have done letter upon letter of appeal to disability insurance companies,” she said.

Some doctors, however, are reluctant to step up in such cases, in part because no standard diagnostic guidelines exist for long COVID and because it can be frustrating.

“This is the work that is not paid and causes burnout in physicians,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “The paperwork, the fighting with insurance companies, the resubmission of forms for disability all to get what your patient needs – and then it gets denied.

“We will keep doing this because our patients need this disability income in order to live their lives and to afford what they need for recovery,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “But at some point something has to change because this isn’t sustainable.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing number of long COVID patients, denied disability benefits despite being unable to work, are turning to the courts for legal relief.

At least 30 lawsuits have been filed seeking legal resolution of disability insurance claims, according to searches of court records. In addition, the Social Security Administration said it has received about 52,000 disability claims tied to SARS-CoV-2 infections, which represents 1% of all applications.

But legal experts say those cases may not reflect the total number of cases that have gone to court. They note many claims are initially dismissed and are not appealed by claimants.

“With this system, they deny two-thirds of initial applications, then people who appeal get denied almost 90% of the time, and then they can appeal before a judge,” said Kevin LaPorte, a Social Security disability attorney at LaPorte Law Firm in Oakland, Calif. “What happens next doesn’t have a lot of precedent because long COVID is a mass disabling event, and we haven’t seen that many of these cases get all the way through the legal system yet.”

As a result, the exact number of long COVID disability claims and the number of these cases going to court isn’t clear, he said.

“It can take a year or more for cases to get to court, and even longer to reach resolution,” Mr. LaPorte added. “I suspect the few cases we’ve heard about at this point are going to be the tip of the iceberg.”

The process is convoluted and can drag on for months with multiple denials and appeals along the way. Many disabled workers find their only recourse is to take insurers to court.

Long COVID patients typically apply for disability benefits through private insurance or Social Security. But the process can drag on for months, so many find their only recourse is to take insurers to court, according to legal experts.

But even in the courts, many encounter delays and hurdles to resolution.

In one of the first federal lawsuits involving long COVID disability benefits, William Abrams, a trial and appellate attorney and active marathon runner, sued Unum Life Insurance seeking long-term disability income. Symptoms included extreme fatigue, brain fog, decreased attention and concentration, and nearly daily fevers, causing him to stop working in April 2020.

His diagnosis wasn’t definitive. Three doctors said he had long COVID, and four said he had chronic fatigue syndrome. Unum cited this inconsistency as a rationale for rejecting his claim. But the court sided with Mr. Abrams, granting him disability income. The court concluded: “Unum may be correct that [the plaintiff] has not been correctly diagnosed. But that does not mean he is not sick. If [the plaintiff’s] complaints, and [the doctor’s] assessments, are to be believed, [the plaintiff] cannot focus for more than a few minutes at a time, making it impossible for [the plaintiff] to perform the varied and complex tasks his job requires.”

Unum said in an emailed statement that the company doesn’t comment on specific claims as a matter of policy, adding that its total payouts for disability claims from March 2020 to February 2022 were 35% higher than prepandemic levels. “In general, disability and leave claims connected to COVID-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering prior to completing the normal qualification period for long-term disability insurance,” Unum said.

Mr. Abrams prevailed in part because he had detailed documentation of the numerous impairments that eventually required him to stop work, said Michelle Roberts of Roberts Disability Law in Oakland, Calif.

He submitted videos of himself taking his temperature to prove he had almost daily fevers, according to court records. He underwent neuropsychological testing, which found learning deficiencies and memory deficits.

Mr. Abrams also submitted statements from a colleague who worked with him on a complex technology patent case involving radiofrequency identification. Before he got COVID, Mr. Abrams “had the analytical ability, legal acumen, and mental energy to attack that learning curve and get up to speed very rapidly,” according to court records.

“The court focused on credulity.” Ms. Roberts said. “There was all this work to be done to show this person was high functioning and ran marathons and worked in an intense, high-pressure occupation but then couldn’t do anything after long COVID.”

Documentation was also crucial in another early federal long COVID disability lawsuit that was filed in 2022 on behalf of Wendy Haut, an educational software sales representative in California who turned to the courts seeking disability income through her company’s employee benefits plan.

Several of Ms. Haut’s doctors documented a detailed list of long COVID symptoms, including “profound fatigue and extreme cognitive difficulties,” that they said prevented her from working as a sales representative or doing any other type of job. A settlement agreement in June 2022 required Reliance Standard Life Insurance to pay Ms. Haut long-term disability benefits, including previously unpaid benefits, according to a report by the advocacy group Pandemic Patients.

Representatives of Reliance Standard didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The growing number of workers being sidelined by long COVID makes more claims and more court cases likely. Right now, an estimated 16 million working-age Americans aged 18-65 years have long COVID, and as many as 4 million of them can’t work, according to a July 2023 Census Bureau report.

Uncertainty about the volume of claims in the pipeline is part of what’s driving some insurers to fight long COVID claims, Ms. Roberts said. Another factor is the lack of clarity around how many years people with long COVID may be out of work, particularly if they’re in their 30s or 40s and might be seeking disability income until they reach retirement age.

“Doctors are not always saying that this person will be permanently disabled,” Ms. Roberts said. “If this person doesn’t get better and they’re disabled until retirement age, this could be a payout in the high six or seven figures if a person is very young and was a very high earner.”

Insurance companies routinely deny claims that can’t be backed up with objective measures, such as specific lab test results or clear findings from a physical exam. But there are steps that can increase the odds of a successful claim for long COVID disability benefits, according to New York–based law firm Hiller.

For starters, patients can document COVID test results, and if testing wasn’t conducted, patients can detail the specific symptoms that led to this diagnosis, Hiller advises. Then patients can keep a daily symptom log at home that run lists all of the specific symptoms that occur at different times during the day and night to help establish a pattern of disability. These logs should provide specific details about every job duty patients have and exactly how specific symptoms of long COVID interfere with these duties.

Even though objective testing is hard to come by for long COVID, people should undergo all the tests they can that may help document the frequency or severity of specific symptoms that make it impossible to carry on with business as usual at work, Hiller advises. This may include neuropsychological testing to document brain fog, a cardiopulmonary exercise test to demonstrate chronic fatigue and the inability to exercise, or a tilt table test to measure dizziness.

Seeking a doctor’s diagnosis can be key to collecting disability payments, in or out of court.

All of this puts a lot of pressure on doctors and patients to build strong cases, said Jonathan Whiteson, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health post-COVID care program in New York. “Many physicians are not familiar with the disability benefit paperwork, and so this is a challenge for the doctors to know how to complete and to build the time into their highly scheduled days to take the time needed to complete.

“It’s also challenging because most of the disability benefit forms are ‘generic’ and do not ask specific questions about COVID disability,” Dr. Whiteson added. “It can be like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.”

Still, when it comes to long COVID, completing disability paperwork is increasingly becoming part of standard care, along with managing medication, rehabilitation therapies, and lifestyle changes to navigate daily life with this illness, Dr. Whiteson noted.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, agreed with this assessment.

“I have done letter upon letter of appeal to disability insurance companies,” she said.

Some doctors, however, are reluctant to step up in such cases, in part because no standard diagnostic guidelines exist for long COVID and because it can be frustrating.

“This is the work that is not paid and causes burnout in physicians,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “The paperwork, the fighting with insurance companies, the resubmission of forms for disability all to get what your patient needs – and then it gets denied.

“We will keep doing this because our patients need this disability income in order to live their lives and to afford what they need for recovery,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “But at some point something has to change because this isn’t sustainable.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

Clinics have been coming up with new ways to add injections to their offerings ever since a new long-acting formulation of cabotegravir has been available to treat people with HIV.

At the Whitman-Walker Health Center, Washington, community health workers see about 3,200 antiretroviral users a year. With long-acting injections now available, the clinic opted to integrate the new medications into its peer staff program.

“Our peer workers are very competent,” said Rupa Patel, MD, MPH, medical liason of the pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention program at Washington University at St. Louis.* “They do phlebotomy, they give you your meds. They’re your main doctor until you really need to see the doctor.”

In the peer staff program, workers are trained in a 4-month medical residency–style program that shows them how to test for HIV, inject long-acting formulations of new drugs, and conduct follow-up visits.

Presenting the new approach at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science, Dr. Patel reported that 139 people have received long-acting injections at the clinic since the program launched with a total of 314 injections administered.

The training program includes lectures, mock injection, and client care sessions, observation and supervised administration, a written exam, and case review sessions.

Retention for the second injection was 95%, with 91% of injections given within the 14-day window. For the third injection, retention was 91%, with 63% given within the window.

The program reports a high level of client satisfaction with the peer-administered injections, which are also given in a room decorated with a beach theme and music to help calm people who might be nervous of receiving shots.

“Our retention is going to be the highest compared to other clinics because your peer, your friend, is reminding you and comforting you and telling you: ‘Don’t worry, I’m on the injection too,’ ” Dr. Patel said.

Andrew Grulich, MD, PhD, head of the HIV epidemiology and prevention program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, pointed out there is tension between wanting to use long-acting injectables for people who are struggling with taking oral therapies daily and the need to ensure that they come back for their injections on time.

“I think it’s a potential way forward – we’re learning as we’re going with these new forms of therapy,” he said in an interview. “It is absolutely critical that people turn up on time for those injections, and if they don’t, resistance can be an issue.”

Presenting new data from another project at the HIV Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, told the conference: “There are multiple reasons why it’s hard to take oral antiretrovirals every day.”

At the HIV Clinic in San Francisco General, people without homes, those with mental illness, and those using stimulants receive care.

The clinical trials for long-acting injectable antiretrovirals included only people who were virologically suppressed, which is also the Food and Drug Administration criteria for use. However, this clinic offered long-acting injections to patients with viremia because it was too difficult for them to take a daily pill.

In a comment, Dr. Gandhi, director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Center for AIDS Research, said: “We don’t call people hard to reach, we call them hardly reached because it’s not their fault.” There are just all of these issues that have made it harder for them to take medication consistently.

Dr. Gandhi reported that, of the 133 people being treated with long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine at the clinic through this program, 57 had viremia at baseline.

However, only two of these patients experienced virologic failure while on the injectable antiretroviral program. The overall virologic failure rate was 1.5%, which was equivalent to that seen in clinical trials in virologically suppressed individuals.

The results presented at the conference and were also published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The clinic found that 73% of people attended their injection appointments on time, and those who did not were followed up with telephone calls to ensure they received their injection within the 14-day window.

Dr. Gandhi said people were highly motivated to turn up for their injection appointments. “They are virologically suppressed, so it feels so amazing. They’re self-motivated for the first time to want to get an injection.”

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

*Correction, 8/4/23: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Patel's university affiliation.

Clinics have been coming up with new ways to add injections to their offerings ever since a new long-acting formulation of cabotegravir has been available to treat people with HIV.

At the Whitman-Walker Health Center, Washington, community health workers see about 3,200 antiretroviral users a year. With long-acting injections now available, the clinic opted to integrate the new medications into its peer staff program.

“Our peer workers are very competent,” said Rupa Patel, MD, MPH, medical liason of the pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention program at Washington University at St. Louis.* “They do phlebotomy, they give you your meds. They’re your main doctor until you really need to see the doctor.”

In the peer staff program, workers are trained in a 4-month medical residency–style program that shows them how to test for HIV, inject long-acting formulations of new drugs, and conduct follow-up visits.

Presenting the new approach at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science, Dr. Patel reported that 139 people have received long-acting injections at the clinic since the program launched with a total of 314 injections administered.

The training program includes lectures, mock injection, and client care sessions, observation and supervised administration, a written exam, and case review sessions.

Retention for the second injection was 95%, with 91% of injections given within the 14-day window. For the third injection, retention was 91%, with 63% given within the window.

The program reports a high level of client satisfaction with the peer-administered injections, which are also given in a room decorated with a beach theme and music to help calm people who might be nervous of receiving shots.

“Our retention is going to be the highest compared to other clinics because your peer, your friend, is reminding you and comforting you and telling you: ‘Don’t worry, I’m on the injection too,’ ” Dr. Patel said.

Andrew Grulich, MD, PhD, head of the HIV epidemiology and prevention program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, pointed out there is tension between wanting to use long-acting injectables for people who are struggling with taking oral therapies daily and the need to ensure that they come back for their injections on time.

“I think it’s a potential way forward – we’re learning as we’re going with these new forms of therapy,” he said in an interview. “It is absolutely critical that people turn up on time for those injections, and if they don’t, resistance can be an issue.”

Presenting new data from another project at the HIV Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, told the conference: “There are multiple reasons why it’s hard to take oral antiretrovirals every day.”

At the HIV Clinic in San Francisco General, people without homes, those with mental illness, and those using stimulants receive care.

The clinical trials for long-acting injectable antiretrovirals included only people who were virologically suppressed, which is also the Food and Drug Administration criteria for use. However, this clinic offered long-acting injections to patients with viremia because it was too difficult for them to take a daily pill.

In a comment, Dr. Gandhi, director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Center for AIDS Research, said: “We don’t call people hard to reach, we call them hardly reached because it’s not their fault.” There are just all of these issues that have made it harder for them to take medication consistently.

Dr. Gandhi reported that, of the 133 people being treated with long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine at the clinic through this program, 57 had viremia at baseline.

However, only two of these patients experienced virologic failure while on the injectable antiretroviral program. The overall virologic failure rate was 1.5%, which was equivalent to that seen in clinical trials in virologically suppressed individuals.

The results presented at the conference and were also published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The clinic found that 73% of people attended their injection appointments on time, and those who did not were followed up with telephone calls to ensure they received their injection within the 14-day window.

Dr. Gandhi said people were highly motivated to turn up for their injection appointments. “They are virologically suppressed, so it feels so amazing. They’re self-motivated for the first time to want to get an injection.”

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

*Correction, 8/4/23: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Patel's university affiliation.

Clinics have been coming up with new ways to add injections to their offerings ever since a new long-acting formulation of cabotegravir has been available to treat people with HIV.

At the Whitman-Walker Health Center, Washington, community health workers see about 3,200 antiretroviral users a year. With long-acting injections now available, the clinic opted to integrate the new medications into its peer staff program.

“Our peer workers are very competent,” said Rupa Patel, MD, MPH, medical liason of the pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention program at Washington University at St. Louis.* “They do phlebotomy, they give you your meds. They’re your main doctor until you really need to see the doctor.”

In the peer staff program, workers are trained in a 4-month medical residency–style program that shows them how to test for HIV, inject long-acting formulations of new drugs, and conduct follow-up visits.

Presenting the new approach at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science, Dr. Patel reported that 139 people have received long-acting injections at the clinic since the program launched with a total of 314 injections administered.

The training program includes lectures, mock injection, and client care sessions, observation and supervised administration, a written exam, and case review sessions.

Retention for the second injection was 95%, with 91% of injections given within the 14-day window. For the third injection, retention was 91%, with 63% given within the window.

The program reports a high level of client satisfaction with the peer-administered injections, which are also given in a room decorated with a beach theme and music to help calm people who might be nervous of receiving shots.

“Our retention is going to be the highest compared to other clinics because your peer, your friend, is reminding you and comforting you and telling you: ‘Don’t worry, I’m on the injection too,’ ” Dr. Patel said.

Andrew Grulich, MD, PhD, head of the HIV epidemiology and prevention program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, pointed out there is tension between wanting to use long-acting injectables for people who are struggling with taking oral therapies daily and the need to ensure that they come back for their injections on time.

“I think it’s a potential way forward – we’re learning as we’re going with these new forms of therapy,” he said in an interview. “It is absolutely critical that people turn up on time for those injections, and if they don’t, resistance can be an issue.”

Presenting new data from another project at the HIV Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, told the conference: “There are multiple reasons why it’s hard to take oral antiretrovirals every day.”

At the HIV Clinic in San Francisco General, people without homes, those with mental illness, and those using stimulants receive care.

The clinical trials for long-acting injectable antiretrovirals included only people who were virologically suppressed, which is also the Food and Drug Administration criteria for use. However, this clinic offered long-acting injections to patients with viremia because it was too difficult for them to take a daily pill.

In a comment, Dr. Gandhi, director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Center for AIDS Research, said: “We don’t call people hard to reach, we call them hardly reached because it’s not their fault.” There are just all of these issues that have made it harder for them to take medication consistently.

Dr. Gandhi reported that, of the 133 people being treated with long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine at the clinic through this program, 57 had viremia at baseline.

However, only two of these patients experienced virologic failure while on the injectable antiretroviral program. The overall virologic failure rate was 1.5%, which was equivalent to that seen in clinical trials in virologically suppressed individuals.

The results presented at the conference and were also published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The clinic found that 73% of people attended their injection appointments on time, and those who did not were followed up with telephone calls to ensure they received their injection within the 14-day window.

Dr. Gandhi said people were highly motivated to turn up for their injection appointments. “They are virologically suppressed, so it feels so amazing. They’re self-motivated for the first time to want to get an injection.”

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

*Correction, 8/4/23: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Patel's university affiliation.

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – The year was 1987 and the Grim Reaper (a personification of death), holding a large scythe, rolled a 10-pin bowling ball through a dark, foggy place. In the advertisement on television, the cloaked skeleton aimed the bowling ball at the other end of a lane where a group of people stood in place of pins.

Who would fall next?

In the 1980s, cases of HIV were rising in the community and people in Australia and elsewhere were dying of AIDS. The Australian government opted to use mainstream media to deliver a blunt message through advertising to raise awareness about the health risk and how to manage HIV in the community.

But the campaign also contributed to stigma for those living with the disease and especially those in the gay community who felt ostracized by rising public concern.

In the inner city of Sydney, a few thousand people died of AIDS, Andrew Grulich, MD, PhD, from the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and involved in tracking cases, said in an interview. “Sydney was devastated by AIDS, it was truly devastated.”

HIV and AIDS quickly became an even more severe problem for several countries around Australia in Thailand, Papua New Guinea, and beyond. After HIV was first reported in Thailand in 1984, the region had the highest prevalence of HIV in Southeast Asia. Through the 1990s in Papua New Guinea, HIV prevalence rose steeply as well.

By 2010, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) set a target of a 90% reduction in HIV incidence, a 90% reduction in AIDS deaths by 2030, and 95% of people living with HIV and AIDS being aware of their status, on treatment, and having an undetectable viral load.

Since then, significant progress has been made globally with 86% of people knowing their HIV status. However, new infections persist at a rate that has not dropped as fast as possible.
 

New infections

According to the latest UNAIDS report, regions of North America and western and central Europe showed a 23% decline in new infections from 2010 to 2022, below the target 90% reduction.

Some regions of the United States have seen significant declines in new HIV infections. San Francisco has a 67% drop in new diagnoses. And now, along with the District of Columbia, the four states with the highest HIV rates are New York, Maryland, Georgia, and Florida.

Several countries in eastern and southern Africa are close to achieving their target HIV reduction of 90%.

Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC for global health advocacy, access, and equity, said that many of the low- and middle-income countries that are on track to achieve targets are able to do so because of support from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

“That foreign development assistance is transforming the AIDS response in a number of African countries, and yet at home, in various states and municipalities, not only are we not reaching that effort, we don’t even use those targets,” Mr. Warren pointed out.

“We might see municipalities that are performing well, but at a national level it’s frankly a disgrace by comparison, because we know what’s possible,” Mr. Warren said.
 

Lowering cases

Today, in the inner city of Sydney, new HIV diagnoses have plummeted by 88%, which puts the area on track to achieve the 90% UNAIDS target ahead of schedule.

Dr. Grulich and his team at the Kirby Institute are tracking new diagnoses by postal code and reported their encouraging findings here this week at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

“This 88% decline is happening in an area where, in the ’80s and ’90s, a few thousand people died of AIDS,” Dr. Grulich told this news organization. “It feels close to miraculous.”

Dr. Grulich attributes some of the success to long-term government leadership that for the most part has been apolitical. HIV has been perceived by the public as an important health issue to be addressed. “We’ve never had a political contest over it,” he added. “We have politicians who are committed to evidence-based policy.”

In inner city Sydney, HIV prevention campaigns are a visible part of community life, Dr. Grulich explained. At public events, it is discussed; at bus stops, posters are on display; and passing trains have messages plastered to the side of them.

That community effort has consistently received government funding for years – albeit linked to key performance indicators – but it has enabled a high level of communication among government, community, clinicians, and researchers.

Another advantage is Australia’s universal health coverage, said Sharon Lewin, PhD, president of the International AIDS Society and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne. “One very clear difference for Australia is a health system that provides free medication and free prevention,” she said. “You can’t underestimate the impact that has on public health.”

Globally, significant progress has been made toward the UN’s 95-95-95 targets, with 86% of people with HIV now knowing their status, 88% of those being on treatment, and 93% of those having an undetectable viral load, “for a total of 75% of all people living with HIV worldwide with undetectable viral load,” Dr. Grulich pointed out.

But Dr. Lewin cautioned that now is not the time to take our eye off the ball, especially with respect to the 39 million or so people living with HIV globally, all of whom need lifelong treatment and care to manage their disease. “We also need to be aware that if we relax the investment, and people stop their treatment, transmission occurs again,” Dr. Lewin warned. “Despite the great news of potentially getting close to eliminating HIV transmission in Australia, HIV is far from over.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – The year was 1987 and the Grim Reaper (a personification of death), holding a large scythe, rolled a 10-pin bowling ball through a dark, foggy place. In the advertisement on television, the cloaked skeleton aimed the bowling ball at the other end of a lane where a group of people stood in place of pins.

Who would fall next?

In the 1980s, cases of HIV were rising in the community and people in Australia and elsewhere were dying of AIDS. The Australian government opted to use mainstream media to deliver a blunt message through advertising to raise awareness about the health risk and how to manage HIV in the community.

But the campaign also contributed to stigma for those living with the disease and especially those in the gay community who felt ostracized by rising public concern.

In the inner city of Sydney, a few thousand people died of AIDS, Andrew Grulich, MD, PhD, from the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and involved in tracking cases, said in an interview. “Sydney was devastated by AIDS, it was truly devastated.”

HIV and AIDS quickly became an even more severe problem for several countries around Australia in Thailand, Papua New Guinea, and beyond. After HIV was first reported in Thailand in 1984, the region had the highest prevalence of HIV in Southeast Asia. Through the 1990s in Papua New Guinea, HIV prevalence rose steeply as well.

By 2010, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) set a target of a 90% reduction in HIV incidence, a 90% reduction in AIDS deaths by 2030, and 95% of people living with HIV and AIDS being aware of their status, on treatment, and having an undetectable viral load.

Since then, significant progress has been made globally with 86% of people knowing their HIV status. However, new infections persist at a rate that has not dropped as fast as possible.
 

New infections

According to the latest UNAIDS report, regions of North America and western and central Europe showed a 23% decline in new infections from 2010 to 2022, below the target 90% reduction.

Some regions of the United States have seen significant declines in new HIV infections. San Francisco has a 67% drop in new diagnoses. And now, along with the District of Columbia, the four states with the highest HIV rates are New York, Maryland, Georgia, and Florida.

Several countries in eastern and southern Africa are close to achieving their target HIV reduction of 90%.

Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC for global health advocacy, access, and equity, said that many of the low- and middle-income countries that are on track to achieve targets are able to do so because of support from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

“That foreign development assistance is transforming the AIDS response in a number of African countries, and yet at home, in various states and municipalities, not only are we not reaching that effort, we don’t even use those targets,” Mr. Warren pointed out.

“We might see municipalities that are performing well, but at a national level it’s frankly a disgrace by comparison, because we know what’s possible,” Mr. Warren said.
 

Lowering cases

Today, in the inner city of Sydney, new HIV diagnoses have plummeted by 88%, which puts the area on track to achieve the 90% UNAIDS target ahead of schedule.

Dr. Grulich and his team at the Kirby Institute are tracking new diagnoses by postal code and reported their encouraging findings here this week at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

“This 88% decline is happening in an area where, in the ’80s and ’90s, a few thousand people died of AIDS,” Dr. Grulich told this news organization. “It feels close to miraculous.”

Dr. Grulich attributes some of the success to long-term government leadership that for the most part has been apolitical. HIV has been perceived by the public as an important health issue to be addressed. “We’ve never had a political contest over it,” he added. “We have politicians who are committed to evidence-based policy.”

In inner city Sydney, HIV prevention campaigns are a visible part of community life, Dr. Grulich explained. At public events, it is discussed; at bus stops, posters are on display; and passing trains have messages plastered to the side of them.

That community effort has consistently received government funding for years – albeit linked to key performance indicators – but it has enabled a high level of communication among government, community, clinicians, and researchers.

Another advantage is Australia’s universal health coverage, said Sharon Lewin, PhD, president of the International AIDS Society and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne. “One very clear difference for Australia is a health system that provides free medication and free prevention,” she said. “You can’t underestimate the impact that has on public health.”

Globally, significant progress has been made toward the UN’s 95-95-95 targets, with 86% of people with HIV now knowing their status, 88% of those being on treatment, and 93% of those having an undetectable viral load, “for a total of 75% of all people living with HIV worldwide with undetectable viral load,” Dr. Grulich pointed out.

But Dr. Lewin cautioned that now is not the time to take our eye off the ball, especially with respect to the 39 million or so people living with HIV globally, all of whom need lifelong treatment and care to manage their disease. “We also need to be aware that if we relax the investment, and people stop their treatment, transmission occurs again,” Dr. Lewin warned. “Despite the great news of potentially getting close to eliminating HIV transmission in Australia, HIV is far from over.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – The year was 1987 and the Grim Reaper (a personification of death), holding a large scythe, rolled a 10-pin bowling ball through a dark, foggy place. In the advertisement on television, the cloaked skeleton aimed the bowling ball at the other end of a lane where a group of people stood in place of pins.

Who would fall next?

In the 1980s, cases of HIV were rising in the community and people in Australia and elsewhere were dying of AIDS. The Australian government opted to use mainstream media to deliver a blunt message through advertising to raise awareness about the health risk and how to manage HIV in the community.

But the campaign also contributed to stigma for those living with the disease and especially those in the gay community who felt ostracized by rising public concern.

In the inner city of Sydney, a few thousand people died of AIDS, Andrew Grulich, MD, PhD, from the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and involved in tracking cases, said in an interview. “Sydney was devastated by AIDS, it was truly devastated.”

HIV and AIDS quickly became an even more severe problem for several countries around Australia in Thailand, Papua New Guinea, and beyond. After HIV was first reported in Thailand in 1984, the region had the highest prevalence of HIV in Southeast Asia. Through the 1990s in Papua New Guinea, HIV prevalence rose steeply as well.

By 2010, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) set a target of a 90% reduction in HIV incidence, a 90% reduction in AIDS deaths by 2030, and 95% of people living with HIV and AIDS being aware of their status, on treatment, and having an undetectable viral load.

Since then, significant progress has been made globally with 86% of people knowing their HIV status. However, new infections persist at a rate that has not dropped as fast as possible.
 

New infections

According to the latest UNAIDS report, regions of North America and western and central Europe showed a 23% decline in new infections from 2010 to 2022, below the target 90% reduction.

Some regions of the United States have seen significant declines in new HIV infections. San Francisco has a 67% drop in new diagnoses. And now, along with the District of Columbia, the four states with the highest HIV rates are New York, Maryland, Georgia, and Florida.

Several countries in eastern and southern Africa are close to achieving their target HIV reduction of 90%.

Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC for global health advocacy, access, and equity, said that many of the low- and middle-income countries that are on track to achieve targets are able to do so because of support from the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

“That foreign development assistance is transforming the AIDS response in a number of African countries, and yet at home, in various states and municipalities, not only are we not reaching that effort, we don’t even use those targets,” Mr. Warren pointed out.

“We might see municipalities that are performing well, but at a national level it’s frankly a disgrace by comparison, because we know what’s possible,” Mr. Warren said.
 

Lowering cases

Today, in the inner city of Sydney, new HIV diagnoses have plummeted by 88%, which puts the area on track to achieve the 90% UNAIDS target ahead of schedule.

Dr. Grulich and his team at the Kirby Institute are tracking new diagnoses by postal code and reported their encouraging findings here this week at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

“This 88% decline is happening in an area where, in the ’80s and ’90s, a few thousand people died of AIDS,” Dr. Grulich told this news organization. “It feels close to miraculous.”

Dr. Grulich attributes some of the success to long-term government leadership that for the most part has been apolitical. HIV has been perceived by the public as an important health issue to be addressed. “We’ve never had a political contest over it,” he added. “We have politicians who are committed to evidence-based policy.”

In inner city Sydney, HIV prevention campaigns are a visible part of community life, Dr. Grulich explained. At public events, it is discussed; at bus stops, posters are on display; and passing trains have messages plastered to the side of them.

That community effort has consistently received government funding for years – albeit linked to key performance indicators – but it has enabled a high level of communication among government, community, clinicians, and researchers.

Another advantage is Australia’s universal health coverage, said Sharon Lewin, PhD, president of the International AIDS Society and director of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity at the University of Melbourne. “One very clear difference for Australia is a health system that provides free medication and free prevention,” she said. “You can’t underestimate the impact that has on public health.”

Globally, significant progress has been made toward the UN’s 95-95-95 targets, with 86% of people with HIV now knowing their status, 88% of those being on treatment, and 93% of those having an undetectable viral load, “for a total of 75% of all people living with HIV worldwide with undetectable viral load,” Dr. Grulich pointed out.

But Dr. Lewin cautioned that now is not the time to take our eye off the ball, especially with respect to the 39 million or so people living with HIV globally, all of whom need lifelong treatment and care to manage their disease. “We also need to be aware that if we relax the investment, and people stop their treatment, transmission occurs again,” Dr. Lewin warned. “Despite the great news of potentially getting close to eliminating HIV transmission in Australia, HIV is far from over.”

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.