Infectious Disease Practitioner

Scientists think that a person in Ohio who has been infected with COVID-19 for 2 years is shedding thousands of times more of the virus than normal, according to wastewater monitoring data. The strain of the virus appears to be unique, the researchers said. 

The mutated version of the virus was discovered by a team of researchers, led by University of Missouri–Columbia virologist Marc Johnson, PhD, that has been studying standalone mutations identified in wastewater. On Twitter, Dr. Johnson said their work could help warn people of a potential risk.

“If you knew of an exposure of a group of people to a deadly disease, there would be an obligation to inform them,” he wrote.

He believes the infected person lives in Columbus, works at a courthouse in a nearby county, and has gut health problems. The county where the person works has a population of just 15,000 people but had record COVID wastewater levels in May, The Columbus Dispatch reported. The unique COVID strain that Dr. Johnson is researching was the only COVID strain found in Fayette County’s wastewater.

“This person was shedding thousands of times more material than a normal person ever would,” Dr. Johnson told the Dispatch. “I think this person isn’t well. ... I’m guessing they have GI issues.”

Monitoring wastewater for COVID-19 is only used to inform public health officials of community levels and spread of the virus. People with COVID are not tracked down using such information.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told the Dispatch that the findings do not mean there’s a public health threat.

“Unusual or ‘cryptic’ sequences identified in wastewater may represent viruses that can replicate in particular individuals, but not in the general population,” the CDC wrote in a statement to the newspaper. “This can be because of a compromised immune system. CDC and other institutions conduct studies in immunocompromised individuals to understand persistent infection and virus evolution.”

Ohio health officials told the newspaper that they don’t consider the situation a public health threat because the cryptic strain hasn’t spread beyond two sewer sheds for those 2  years.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues have been researching other unique COVID strains found in wastewater. They wrote a paper about a case in Wisconsin currently in preprint.

In the paper, the researchers suggest some people are persistently infected, calling them “prolonged shedders.” The researchers wrote that prolonged shedders could be human or “nonhuman,” and that “increased global monitoring of such lineages in wastewater could help anticipate future circulating mutations and/or variants of concern.”

Earlier in 2023, the CDC announced it was ending its community-level reporting of COVID test data and would rely more heavily on hospitalization reports and wastewater monitoring. COVID hospitalizations dipped to 7,212 nationally for the week of June 1-8, which is a 6% decline from the week prior, according to the CDC. That number of hospitalizations equals about two hospitalizations per 100,000 people.

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

Scientists think that a person in Ohio who has been infected with COVID-19 for 2 years is shedding thousands of times more of the virus than normal, according to wastewater monitoring data. The strain of the virus appears to be unique, the researchers said. 

The mutated version of the virus was discovered by a team of researchers, led by University of Missouri–Columbia virologist Marc Johnson, PhD, that has been studying standalone mutations identified in wastewater. On Twitter, Dr. Johnson said their work could help warn people of a potential risk.

“If you knew of an exposure of a group of people to a deadly disease, there would be an obligation to inform them,” he wrote.

He believes the infected person lives in Columbus, works at a courthouse in a nearby county, and has gut health problems. The county where the person works has a population of just 15,000 people but had record COVID wastewater levels in May, The Columbus Dispatch reported. The unique COVID strain that Dr. Johnson is researching was the only COVID strain found in Fayette County’s wastewater.

“This person was shedding thousands of times more material than a normal person ever would,” Dr. Johnson told the Dispatch. “I think this person isn’t well. ... I’m guessing they have GI issues.”

Monitoring wastewater for COVID-19 is only used to inform public health officials of community levels and spread of the virus. People with COVID are not tracked down using such information.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told the Dispatch that the findings do not mean there’s a public health threat.

“Unusual or ‘cryptic’ sequences identified in wastewater may represent viruses that can replicate in particular individuals, but not in the general population,” the CDC wrote in a statement to the newspaper. “This can be because of a compromised immune system. CDC and other institutions conduct studies in immunocompromised individuals to understand persistent infection and virus evolution.”

Ohio health officials told the newspaper that they don’t consider the situation a public health threat because the cryptic strain hasn’t spread beyond two sewer sheds for those 2  years.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues have been researching other unique COVID strains found in wastewater. They wrote a paper about a case in Wisconsin currently in preprint.

In the paper, the researchers suggest some people are persistently infected, calling them “prolonged shedders.” The researchers wrote that prolonged shedders could be human or “nonhuman,” and that “increased global monitoring of such lineages in wastewater could help anticipate future circulating mutations and/or variants of concern.”

Earlier in 2023, the CDC announced it was ending its community-level reporting of COVID test data and would rely more heavily on hospitalization reports and wastewater monitoring. COVID hospitalizations dipped to 7,212 nationally for the week of June 1-8, which is a 6% decline from the week prior, according to the CDC. That number of hospitalizations equals about two hospitalizations per 100,000 people.

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

Scientists think that a person in Ohio who has been infected with COVID-19 for 2 years is shedding thousands of times more of the virus than normal, according to wastewater monitoring data. The strain of the virus appears to be unique, the researchers said. 

The mutated version of the virus was discovered by a team of researchers, led by University of Missouri–Columbia virologist Marc Johnson, PhD, that has been studying standalone mutations identified in wastewater. On Twitter, Dr. Johnson said their work could help warn people of a potential risk.

“If you knew of an exposure of a group of people to a deadly disease, there would be an obligation to inform them,” he wrote.

He believes the infected person lives in Columbus, works at a courthouse in a nearby county, and has gut health problems. The county where the person works has a population of just 15,000 people but had record COVID wastewater levels in May, The Columbus Dispatch reported. The unique COVID strain that Dr. Johnson is researching was the only COVID strain found in Fayette County’s wastewater.

“This person was shedding thousands of times more material than a normal person ever would,” Dr. Johnson told the Dispatch. “I think this person isn’t well. ... I’m guessing they have GI issues.”

Monitoring wastewater for COVID-19 is only used to inform public health officials of community levels and spread of the virus. People with COVID are not tracked down using such information.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told the Dispatch that the findings do not mean there’s a public health threat.

“Unusual or ‘cryptic’ sequences identified in wastewater may represent viruses that can replicate in particular individuals, but not in the general population,” the CDC wrote in a statement to the newspaper. “This can be because of a compromised immune system. CDC and other institutions conduct studies in immunocompromised individuals to understand persistent infection and virus evolution.”

Ohio health officials told the newspaper that they don’t consider the situation a public health threat because the cryptic strain hasn’t spread beyond two sewer sheds for those 2  years.

Dr. Johnson and colleagues have been researching other unique COVID strains found in wastewater. They wrote a paper about a case in Wisconsin currently in preprint.

In the paper, the researchers suggest some people are persistently infected, calling them “prolonged shedders.” The researchers wrote that prolonged shedders could be human or “nonhuman,” and that “increased global monitoring of such lineages in wastewater could help anticipate future circulating mutations and/or variants of concern.”

Earlier in 2023, the CDC announced it was ending its community-level reporting of COVID test data and would rely more heavily on hospitalization reports and wastewater monitoring. COVID hospitalizations dipped to 7,212 nationally for the week of June 1-8, which is a 6% decline from the week prior, according to the CDC. That number of hospitalizations equals about two hospitalizations per 100,000 people.

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

Researchers using a modeling study of rabies in the United States have quantified the risk of death and exposure and estimated a threshold to help health care providers decide when postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is appropriate.

© astridb05/Fotolia.com

The model, reported in JAMA Network Open, could help clinicians, particularly those in primary care settings, to more rationally prescribe PEP to people concerned about a potential exposure to the rabies virus (RABV). In the United States, rabies PEP often is given without a comprehensive assessment that considers regional factors as well as species, nature of an attack, and the health and vaccination status of the animal.

Providers err on the side of caution, as rabies infection has a fatality rate near 100%. When exposures are low-risk, however, patients can rack up substantial out-of-pocket expenses or experience unnecessary adverse effects from the series of shots. Those can include injection site reactions, hypersensitivity reactions, and neurological complications.

The authors write that an estimated 55,000 people per year in the United States were treated for potential exposure to RABV in 2017 and 2018, at an estimated cost of more than $3,800 per person treated.
 

Researchers calculate risk threshold

The researchers, led by Kelly Charniga, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, calculated positivity rates using more than 900,000 animal samples tested for RABV between 2011 and 2020. Other parameters were estimated from surveillance data and the literature and probabilities were estimated using Bayes’ rule.

A convenience sample of state public health officials in all states (excluding Hawaii) plus Washington and Puerto Rico was used to help determine a risk threshold for recommending PEP. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PEP given 24 standardized exposure scenarios while accounting for local rabies epidemiology.

Their model establishes a risk threshold of 0.0004 for PEP administration, which represents the probability that an animal would test positive for RABV given that a person was exposed, and the probability that a person would die from rabies after exposure to a suspect rabid animal and no PEP. PEP should not be recommended with any value lower than that cutoff.

Alfred DeMaria, DPH, a consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved with the study, said the work will be particularly helpful for primary care physicians, giving them confidence to not recommend PEP when infection is statistically highly unlikely and thereby to reduce unnecessary and costly measures.

“Concern about rabies is often based on a very unlikely scenario,” Dr. DeMaria said. He gave the example of people coming into primary care worried that they might have been exposed after comforting their dog who had been bitten in a fight with a wild animal.

“Has that ever happened in the history of the human species? Not that we know of,” he said.

Many people also think dogs and other domestic animals are a likely source of rabies, which is not the case in the United States, Dr. DeMaria said.

“In most cases, it is exposure to a raccoon, a skunk, or a bat,” he said. “Most calls are for potential bat exposure, especially in the summer when young bats are flying around and are not very savvy about avoiding humans.”

The authors note the difference between the animals likely to bite and the species that carry RABV: “The most common mammals involved in bite events in the U.S. are dogs, cats, and small rodents. These species, when healthy and provoked into biting, represent some of the lowest risk exposures evaluated in this model.”

The canine rabies variant virus was eliminated in the United States in 2004.

The study authors note that their model should not be used in other countries because “most rabies deaths globally are caused by domestic dogs.”

Health department consultation can reduce inappropriate treatment

Dr. DeMaria said the paper may also convince physicians to consult with their health department for a final recommendation.

The authors note that a 2020 study in Cook County, Ill., found patients who received PEP were about 90% less likely to receive inappropriate treatment if their clinician had consulted with a health department.

“Anything that puts the risk in a context, like this paper does, is helpful,” he said.

Most physicians in the United States will never see a patient with rabies, the authors write, but animal bites are common – resulting in hundreds of thousands of primary care and emergency department visits each year when physicians must decide whether to administer PEP.

The study authors and Dr. DeMaria report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers using a modeling study of rabies in the United States have quantified the risk of death and exposure and estimated a threshold to help health care providers decide when postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is appropriate.

© astridb05/Fotolia.com

The model, reported in JAMA Network Open, could help clinicians, particularly those in primary care settings, to more rationally prescribe PEP to people concerned about a potential exposure to the rabies virus (RABV). In the United States, rabies PEP often is given without a comprehensive assessment that considers regional factors as well as species, nature of an attack, and the health and vaccination status of the animal.

Providers err on the side of caution, as rabies infection has a fatality rate near 100%. When exposures are low-risk, however, patients can rack up substantial out-of-pocket expenses or experience unnecessary adverse effects from the series of shots. Those can include injection site reactions, hypersensitivity reactions, and neurological complications.

The authors write that an estimated 55,000 people per year in the United States were treated for potential exposure to RABV in 2017 and 2018, at an estimated cost of more than $3,800 per person treated.
 

Researchers calculate risk threshold

The researchers, led by Kelly Charniga, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, calculated positivity rates using more than 900,000 animal samples tested for RABV between 2011 and 2020. Other parameters were estimated from surveillance data and the literature and probabilities were estimated using Bayes’ rule.

A convenience sample of state public health officials in all states (excluding Hawaii) plus Washington and Puerto Rico was used to help determine a risk threshold for recommending PEP. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PEP given 24 standardized exposure scenarios while accounting for local rabies epidemiology.

Their model establishes a risk threshold of 0.0004 for PEP administration, which represents the probability that an animal would test positive for RABV given that a person was exposed, and the probability that a person would die from rabies after exposure to a suspect rabid animal and no PEP. PEP should not be recommended with any value lower than that cutoff.

Alfred DeMaria, DPH, a consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved with the study, said the work will be particularly helpful for primary care physicians, giving them confidence to not recommend PEP when infection is statistically highly unlikely and thereby to reduce unnecessary and costly measures.

“Concern about rabies is often based on a very unlikely scenario,” Dr. DeMaria said. He gave the example of people coming into primary care worried that they might have been exposed after comforting their dog who had been bitten in a fight with a wild animal.

“Has that ever happened in the history of the human species? Not that we know of,” he said.

Many people also think dogs and other domestic animals are a likely source of rabies, which is not the case in the United States, Dr. DeMaria said.

“In most cases, it is exposure to a raccoon, a skunk, or a bat,” he said. “Most calls are for potential bat exposure, especially in the summer when young bats are flying around and are not very savvy about avoiding humans.”

The authors note the difference between the animals likely to bite and the species that carry RABV: “The most common mammals involved in bite events in the U.S. are dogs, cats, and small rodents. These species, when healthy and provoked into biting, represent some of the lowest risk exposures evaluated in this model.”

The canine rabies variant virus was eliminated in the United States in 2004.

The study authors note that their model should not be used in other countries because “most rabies deaths globally are caused by domestic dogs.”

Health department consultation can reduce inappropriate treatment

Dr. DeMaria said the paper may also convince physicians to consult with their health department for a final recommendation.

The authors note that a 2020 study in Cook County, Ill., found patients who received PEP were about 90% less likely to receive inappropriate treatment if their clinician had consulted with a health department.

“Anything that puts the risk in a context, like this paper does, is helpful,” he said.

Most physicians in the United States will never see a patient with rabies, the authors write, but animal bites are common – resulting in hundreds of thousands of primary care and emergency department visits each year when physicians must decide whether to administer PEP.

The study authors and Dr. DeMaria report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers using a modeling study of rabies in the United States have quantified the risk of death and exposure and estimated a threshold to help health care providers decide when postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is appropriate.

© astridb05/Fotolia.com

The model, reported in JAMA Network Open, could help clinicians, particularly those in primary care settings, to more rationally prescribe PEP to people concerned about a potential exposure to the rabies virus (RABV). In the United States, rabies PEP often is given without a comprehensive assessment that considers regional factors as well as species, nature of an attack, and the health and vaccination status of the animal.

Providers err on the side of caution, as rabies infection has a fatality rate near 100%. When exposures are low-risk, however, patients can rack up substantial out-of-pocket expenses or experience unnecessary adverse effects from the series of shots. Those can include injection site reactions, hypersensitivity reactions, and neurological complications.

The authors write that an estimated 55,000 people per year in the United States were treated for potential exposure to RABV in 2017 and 2018, at an estimated cost of more than $3,800 per person treated.
 

Researchers calculate risk threshold

The researchers, led by Kelly Charniga, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, calculated positivity rates using more than 900,000 animal samples tested for RABV between 2011 and 2020. Other parameters were estimated from surveillance data and the literature and probabilities were estimated using Bayes’ rule.

A convenience sample of state public health officials in all states (excluding Hawaii) plus Washington and Puerto Rico was used to help determine a risk threshold for recommending PEP. Respondents were asked whether they would recommend PEP given 24 standardized exposure scenarios while accounting for local rabies epidemiology.

Their model establishes a risk threshold of 0.0004 for PEP administration, which represents the probability that an animal would test positive for RABV given that a person was exposed, and the probability that a person would die from rabies after exposure to a suspect rabid animal and no PEP. PEP should not be recommended with any value lower than that cutoff.

Alfred DeMaria, DPH, a consultant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in Boston, who was not involved with the study, said the work will be particularly helpful for primary care physicians, giving them confidence to not recommend PEP when infection is statistically highly unlikely and thereby to reduce unnecessary and costly measures.

“Concern about rabies is often based on a very unlikely scenario,” Dr. DeMaria said. He gave the example of people coming into primary care worried that they might have been exposed after comforting their dog who had been bitten in a fight with a wild animal.

“Has that ever happened in the history of the human species? Not that we know of,” he said.

Many people also think dogs and other domestic animals are a likely source of rabies, which is not the case in the United States, Dr. DeMaria said.

“In most cases, it is exposure to a raccoon, a skunk, or a bat,” he said. “Most calls are for potential bat exposure, especially in the summer when young bats are flying around and are not very savvy about avoiding humans.”

The authors note the difference between the animals likely to bite and the species that carry RABV: “The most common mammals involved in bite events in the U.S. are dogs, cats, and small rodents. These species, when healthy and provoked into biting, represent some of the lowest risk exposures evaluated in this model.”

The canine rabies variant virus was eliminated in the United States in 2004.

The study authors note that their model should not be used in other countries because “most rabies deaths globally are caused by domestic dogs.”

Health department consultation can reduce inappropriate treatment

Dr. DeMaria said the paper may also convince physicians to consult with their health department for a final recommendation.

The authors note that a 2020 study in Cook County, Ill., found patients who received PEP were about 90% less likely to receive inappropriate treatment if their clinician had consulted with a health department.

“Anything that puts the risk in a context, like this paper does, is helpful,” he said.

Most physicians in the United States will never see a patient with rabies, the authors write, but animal bites are common – resulting in hundreds of thousands of primary care and emergency department visits each year when physicians must decide whether to administer PEP.

The study authors and Dr. DeMaria report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are significantly more likely to develop herpes zoster infections than immunocompetent individuals, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “Herpes zoster and its complications are associated with increased health care cost and decreased quality of life,” lead author Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, director of U.S. Health Outcomes & Epidemiology at GSK Vaccines, Alexandria, Va., reported.

“The take-home finding is that herpes zoster incidence is high among people with MS overall,” Mr. Stempniewicz said in an interview. “We also found that herpes zoster incidence is numerically higher among MS patients with higher levels of baseline immunosuppression, so another conclusion is that herpes zoster prevention may be warranted among this population given the high level of immunosuppression and the high risk of developing herpes zoster infection.” GSK manufactures Shingrix, the only currently approved and recommended herpes zoster vaccine available in the United States

Lawrence Steinman, MD, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, was not involved in the research but said in an interview that the findings “raise the issue of whether not enough individuals with MS are getting Shingrix, and also whether there is a need for rapid intervention with an antiviral, for those individuals who develop shingles.”
 

Real-world data

For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database between October 2015 and March 2022 to compare shingles infections between adults with MS (and no other immunocompromising conditions) and a random sample of one million people without any immunocompromising conditions. The study excluded anyone who had been vaccinated against herpes zoster or diagnosed with it in the year before October 2015.

Among the 42,185 adults with MS included in the cohort, just over half (53%) were commercially insured, and 47% had Medicare Advantage. Their average age was 53, and 75% were female. Just over half the cohort (55%) had no immunosuppression because of medications while 35% had low immunosuppression from MS therapy and 10% had high immunosuppression from therapy. High suppression meant patients were taking fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, cladribine, or a monoclonal antibody except natalizumab. Those with low suppression were taking natalizumab, fumarates, IVIG, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta or a related drug, teriflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.

The rate of shingles infections in the MS patient population was 13.8 per 1,000 people per year, compared with 5.6 infections per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.69; 95% confidenceinterval, 1.58-1.81. When broken down by age, younger adults aged 18-49 with MS were more than three times more likely to develop shingles (incidence rate, 11.6 per 1,000 people per year) than immunocompetent younger adults (IR, 3.5). The gap was narrower for those age 50 and older, where adults with MS had a rate of 15.2 infections per 1,000 people per year versus 8.6 per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year.

Although MS patients with a higher baseline level of immunosuppression from therapy had higher herpes zoster infection rates (18 cases per 1,000 people per year) than those with low immunosuppression (14 cases per 1,000 people per year) or no immunosuppression from medication (13 cases per 1,000 people per year), rates for all three remained higher than for the immunocompetent population.
 

Herpes and MS: Some questions still unanswered

“We’ve known that herpes zoster is more common in people with MS, and we’ve known that it is seen in people on MS therapies,” Robert Fox, MD, a staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “What we haven’t known is just how much more common it is in people with MS than the rest of the adult population and whether it truly is more common in people taking MS therapies than people not taking MS therapies. This study puts real, population-based numbers on the incidence rates.”

Dr. Fox, who was not involved in the research, noted that a limitation of the study was the inability to know the risk of shingles according to specific MS therapies since all the therapies were grouped together.

”So I can’t say to a patient that their particular therapy increases their risk,” Dr. Fox said. “Similarly with the MS therapies listed in the ‘high’ immunosuppression category: We don’t know that each of the therapies listed do in fact increase the rate of herpes zoster. We just know that the group of MS therapies bunched into the ‘high’ category, on the whole, increase the rate of herpes zoster.”

The study does not provide any information about the impact of Shingrix vaccination, he added, since vaccinated individuals were excluded from the analysis.
 

Timing the vaccination with MS therapy

Dr. Steinman said in an interview that he recommends herpes zoster vaccination to his patients with MS.

“The mistake that people make with MS is that they don’t want to take the [herpes zoster] vaccine, and they should be taking it,”

Dr. Steinman said. “In a perfect world, they would get it before they went on their [immunosuppressive] drug. But now we’ll have a lot of people who didn’t take the vaccine; they can get it while they’re on their drug.” Although it depends on the particular therapy they’re taking, Dr. Steinman said that most people can get the shingles vaccine while continuing their medication.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed because of a disease or therapy get two doses of the Shingrix vaccine against herpes zoster, regardless of whether they have previously been vaccinated with Zostavax or have ever had shingles. The agency has also issued detailed clinical guidance regarding how to administer the vaccine to individuals taking immunosuppressive therapy, including the option to administer the second dose 1-2 months after the first instead of 2-6 months to “facilitate avoiding vaccination during periods of more intense immunosuppression,” the agency wrote.

The research was sponsored, funded, and analyzed by GSK, which manufactures the shingles vaccine Shingrix, and Mr. Stempniewicz is a GSK employee. Two other authors are GSK employees, and three authors are employees of Optum who received fees from GSK for this study. Dr. Steinman and Dr. Fox reported no relevant disclosures.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are significantly more likely to develop herpes zoster infections than immunocompetent individuals, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “Herpes zoster and its complications are associated with increased health care cost and decreased quality of life,” lead author Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, director of U.S. Health Outcomes & Epidemiology at GSK Vaccines, Alexandria, Va., reported.

“The take-home finding is that herpes zoster incidence is high among people with MS overall,” Mr. Stempniewicz said in an interview. “We also found that herpes zoster incidence is numerically higher among MS patients with higher levels of baseline immunosuppression, so another conclusion is that herpes zoster prevention may be warranted among this population given the high level of immunosuppression and the high risk of developing herpes zoster infection.” GSK manufactures Shingrix, the only currently approved and recommended herpes zoster vaccine available in the United States

Lawrence Steinman, MD, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, was not involved in the research but said in an interview that the findings “raise the issue of whether not enough individuals with MS are getting Shingrix, and also whether there is a need for rapid intervention with an antiviral, for those individuals who develop shingles.”
 

Real-world data

For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database between October 2015 and March 2022 to compare shingles infections between adults with MS (and no other immunocompromising conditions) and a random sample of one million people without any immunocompromising conditions. The study excluded anyone who had been vaccinated against herpes zoster or diagnosed with it in the year before October 2015.

Among the 42,185 adults with MS included in the cohort, just over half (53%) were commercially insured, and 47% had Medicare Advantage. Their average age was 53, and 75% were female. Just over half the cohort (55%) had no immunosuppression because of medications while 35% had low immunosuppression from MS therapy and 10% had high immunosuppression from therapy. High suppression meant patients were taking fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, cladribine, or a monoclonal antibody except natalizumab. Those with low suppression were taking natalizumab, fumarates, IVIG, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta or a related drug, teriflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.

The rate of shingles infections in the MS patient population was 13.8 per 1,000 people per year, compared with 5.6 infections per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.69; 95% confidenceinterval, 1.58-1.81. When broken down by age, younger adults aged 18-49 with MS were more than three times more likely to develop shingles (incidence rate, 11.6 per 1,000 people per year) than immunocompetent younger adults (IR, 3.5). The gap was narrower for those age 50 and older, where adults with MS had a rate of 15.2 infections per 1,000 people per year versus 8.6 per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year.

Although MS patients with a higher baseline level of immunosuppression from therapy had higher herpes zoster infection rates (18 cases per 1,000 people per year) than those with low immunosuppression (14 cases per 1,000 people per year) or no immunosuppression from medication (13 cases per 1,000 people per year), rates for all three remained higher than for the immunocompetent population.
 

Herpes and MS: Some questions still unanswered

“We’ve known that herpes zoster is more common in people with MS, and we’ve known that it is seen in people on MS therapies,” Robert Fox, MD, a staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “What we haven’t known is just how much more common it is in people with MS than the rest of the adult population and whether it truly is more common in people taking MS therapies than people not taking MS therapies. This study puts real, population-based numbers on the incidence rates.”

Dr. Fox, who was not involved in the research, noted that a limitation of the study was the inability to know the risk of shingles according to specific MS therapies since all the therapies were grouped together.

”So I can’t say to a patient that their particular therapy increases their risk,” Dr. Fox said. “Similarly with the MS therapies listed in the ‘high’ immunosuppression category: We don’t know that each of the therapies listed do in fact increase the rate of herpes zoster. We just know that the group of MS therapies bunched into the ‘high’ category, on the whole, increase the rate of herpes zoster.”

The study does not provide any information about the impact of Shingrix vaccination, he added, since vaccinated individuals were excluded from the analysis.
 

Timing the vaccination with MS therapy

Dr. Steinman said in an interview that he recommends herpes zoster vaccination to his patients with MS.

“The mistake that people make with MS is that they don’t want to take the [herpes zoster] vaccine, and they should be taking it,”

Dr. Steinman said. “In a perfect world, they would get it before they went on their [immunosuppressive] drug. But now we’ll have a lot of people who didn’t take the vaccine; they can get it while they’re on their drug.” Although it depends on the particular therapy they’re taking, Dr. Steinman said that most people can get the shingles vaccine while continuing their medication.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed because of a disease or therapy get two doses of the Shingrix vaccine against herpes zoster, regardless of whether they have previously been vaccinated with Zostavax or have ever had shingles. The agency has also issued detailed clinical guidance regarding how to administer the vaccine to individuals taking immunosuppressive therapy, including the option to administer the second dose 1-2 months after the first instead of 2-6 months to “facilitate avoiding vaccination during periods of more intense immunosuppression,” the agency wrote.

The research was sponsored, funded, and analyzed by GSK, which manufactures the shingles vaccine Shingrix, and Mr. Stempniewicz is a GSK employee. Two other authors are GSK employees, and three authors are employees of Optum who received fees from GSK for this study. Dr. Steinman and Dr. Fox reported no relevant disclosures.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are significantly more likely to develop herpes zoster infections than immunocompetent individuals, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “Herpes zoster and its complications are associated with increased health care cost and decreased quality of life,” lead author Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, director of U.S. Health Outcomes & Epidemiology at GSK Vaccines, Alexandria, Va., reported.

“The take-home finding is that herpes zoster incidence is high among people with MS overall,” Mr. Stempniewicz said in an interview. “We also found that herpes zoster incidence is numerically higher among MS patients with higher levels of baseline immunosuppression, so another conclusion is that herpes zoster prevention may be warranted among this population given the high level of immunosuppression and the high risk of developing herpes zoster infection.” GSK manufactures Shingrix, the only currently approved and recommended herpes zoster vaccine available in the United States

Lawrence Steinman, MD, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, was not involved in the research but said in an interview that the findings “raise the issue of whether not enough individuals with MS are getting Shingrix, and also whether there is a need for rapid intervention with an antiviral, for those individuals who develop shingles.”
 

Real-world data

For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database between October 2015 and March 2022 to compare shingles infections between adults with MS (and no other immunocompromising conditions) and a random sample of one million people without any immunocompromising conditions. The study excluded anyone who had been vaccinated against herpes zoster or diagnosed with it in the year before October 2015.

Among the 42,185 adults with MS included in the cohort, just over half (53%) were commercially insured, and 47% had Medicare Advantage. Their average age was 53, and 75% were female. Just over half the cohort (55%) had no immunosuppression because of medications while 35% had low immunosuppression from MS therapy and 10% had high immunosuppression from therapy. High suppression meant patients were taking fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, cladribine, or a monoclonal antibody except natalizumab. Those with low suppression were taking natalizumab, fumarates, IVIG, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta or a related drug, teriflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.

The rate of shingles infections in the MS patient population was 13.8 per 1,000 people per year, compared with 5.6 infections per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.69; 95% confidenceinterval, 1.58-1.81. When broken down by age, younger adults aged 18-49 with MS were more than three times more likely to develop shingles (incidence rate, 11.6 per 1,000 people per year) than immunocompetent younger adults (IR, 3.5). The gap was narrower for those age 50 and older, where adults with MS had a rate of 15.2 infections per 1,000 people per year versus 8.6 per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year.

Although MS patients with a higher baseline level of immunosuppression from therapy had higher herpes zoster infection rates (18 cases per 1,000 people per year) than those with low immunosuppression (14 cases per 1,000 people per year) or no immunosuppression from medication (13 cases per 1,000 people per year), rates for all three remained higher than for the immunocompetent population.
 

Herpes and MS: Some questions still unanswered

“We’ve known that herpes zoster is more common in people with MS, and we’ve known that it is seen in people on MS therapies,” Robert Fox, MD, a staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “What we haven’t known is just how much more common it is in people with MS than the rest of the adult population and whether it truly is more common in people taking MS therapies than people not taking MS therapies. This study puts real, population-based numbers on the incidence rates.”

Dr. Fox, who was not involved in the research, noted that a limitation of the study was the inability to know the risk of shingles according to specific MS therapies since all the therapies were grouped together.

”So I can’t say to a patient that their particular therapy increases their risk,” Dr. Fox said. “Similarly with the MS therapies listed in the ‘high’ immunosuppression category: We don’t know that each of the therapies listed do in fact increase the rate of herpes zoster. We just know that the group of MS therapies bunched into the ‘high’ category, on the whole, increase the rate of herpes zoster.”

The study does not provide any information about the impact of Shingrix vaccination, he added, since vaccinated individuals were excluded from the analysis.
 

Timing the vaccination with MS therapy

Dr. Steinman said in an interview that he recommends herpes zoster vaccination to his patients with MS.

“The mistake that people make with MS is that they don’t want to take the [herpes zoster] vaccine, and they should be taking it,”

Dr. Steinman said. “In a perfect world, they would get it before they went on their [immunosuppressive] drug. But now we’ll have a lot of people who didn’t take the vaccine; they can get it while they’re on their drug.” Although it depends on the particular therapy they’re taking, Dr. Steinman said that most people can get the shingles vaccine while continuing their medication.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed because of a disease or therapy get two doses of the Shingrix vaccine against herpes zoster, regardless of whether they have previously been vaccinated with Zostavax or have ever had shingles. The agency has also issued detailed clinical guidance regarding how to administer the vaccine to individuals taking immunosuppressive therapy, including the option to administer the second dose 1-2 months after the first instead of 2-6 months to “facilitate avoiding vaccination during periods of more intense immunosuppression,” the agency wrote.

The research was sponsored, funded, and analyzed by GSK, which manufactures the shingles vaccine Shingrix, and Mr. Stempniewicz is a GSK employee. Two other authors are GSK employees, and three authors are employees of Optum who received fees from GSK for this study. Dr. Steinman and Dr. Fox reported no relevant disclosures.

A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is needed to further improve its effectiveness, according to two recent reviews published in Cell Host and Microbe.

Both research teams agree that more needs to be known about how various underexplored factors – such as the patient’s diet and genetic background, how closely the donor’s microbial composition matches the patient’s existing microbiome, and the presence of nonbacterial gut inhabitants like viruses and fungi – affect FMT success, according to a press release.

FMT is most often used to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, which don’t always respond to antibiotics. Success rates range from 60% to 90%, depending on the administration route and study design, notes an international research team led by Abbas Yadegar, PhD, a medical bacteriologist at the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

The understanding of how FMT works is incomplete, however, and the reasons some patients fail to benefit is unclear, note Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. Little attention has been paid to the role that other components of the patient’s microbiome, along with outside factors, play in the treatment’s success, they add.

“We wanted other researchers to look beyond changes in stool microbial composition and function, which have been the focus of research in the past few years,” Dr. Yadegar’s team said in a statement provided to this news organization.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ review of more than 130 studies summarizes recent evidence on the mechanisms contributing to FMT success against recurrent C. difficile infection, highlights knowledge gaps, and proposes future research directions in the field.

Factors that influence FMT’s effectiveness and the potential the procedure holds for treatment of other diseases associated with gut dysbiosis are the subject of a review of 149 studies by a team of researchers led by Serena Porcari, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Rome.

“Our main goal was not only to unravel the different mechanisms of FMT efficacy but also to introduce some mindset shifts that are needed to bring FMT forward, mainly covering the gap that exists between basic scientists and clinicians,” Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher in digestive diseases who works with Dr. Porcari and is the review’s lead author, told this news organization.
 

Engraftment may influence success

Engraftment of donor microbial strains in recipients appears to be key to the therapeutic success of FMT, both reviews note.

Three factors influence engraftment: the donor’s bacteria fitness relative to the recipient, the bacteria already present in the recipient, and whether antibiotics are used prior to FMT to open a niche for the incoming donor microbes, according to Dr. Yadegar and colleagues.

How to calculate strain engraftment has not yet been standardized in the field, and the number of strains detected in the recipient’s fecal sample is dependent on the depth of sequencing techniques, Dr. Porcari and colleagues note.

The use of whole-genome sequencing has enabled more precise evaluation of engraftment, they add.

“With this approach, microbial engraftment has been associated with clinical success, regardless of the disease, in a large metagenomic metanalysis of 24 FMT trials and almost 1,400 fecal samples,” Dr. Porcari and colleagues write. However, these results have not been replicated, likely because of differences between the studies.

More study on the topic is needed, both articles note.

“Because the recent metagenomics studies compared pre- and post-FMT only in cases with successful treatment outcomes, it is not possible to link engraftment to clinical outcomes,” Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write in their statement to this news organization.
 

A closer look at donor-recipient pairings

Clinicians usually enlist healthy, carefully screened individuals as FMT donors.

However, both research groups conclude that fine-scale taxonomic and metabolic analyses of donor and recipient microbiomes would better inform clinical decisions, especially when treating diseases other than C. difficile.

This may call for a more personalized approach to choosing donor-recipient pairings. Investigators should assess the patient’s diet and genetic background and how closely the donor’s microbiome matches that of the patient.

“Most studies focused on profiling stool samples before and after FMT without also including functional analyses; therefore, there are still a lot of aspects of host microbial interactions that remain unknown,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues in their statement.

Ecologic factors, including diet and host genetics, are often not included in clinical studies of C. difficile, but they “may potentially be the missing links” to treatment failure in the small portion of patients whose condition doesn’t respond to FMT, they write.

Pairing donor-recipient combinations on the basis of dietary patterns and preferences could improve FMT efficacy because the donor microbiota would be preadapted to the recipient’s diet, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write. The team is examining how donor and recipient diet may affect outcomes.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues add that while some studies support the existence of shared characteristics that make up super-donors, others found that the optimal donor is more patient specific. They call for personalized selection strategies that employ microbiome sequencing tools rather than a “one stool fits all” approach.

Currently, many clinicians aren’t familiar with microbiome sequencing and analysis, but they’ll need to be in the near future, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

“Identifying microbiome characteristics that maximize strain engraftment in the FMT will allow clinicians to select the best donor for each single patient,” they write.
 

The possible role of viruses and fungi

In FMT research, investigators tend to focus on the bacteria in the human microbiome. However, viruses and fungi also appear to play a role, both articles note.

“Other microbial kingdoms that inhabit the intestine should be taken into account when considering predictors of post-FMT microbial transfer,” write Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

Although few studies have examined the gut virome’s impact on FMT effectiveness against C. difficile, the existing research, although limited, indicates that bacteriophage viruses could play a role, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues note. For example, high levels of donor-derived Caudoviralesbacteriophages in recipients were associated with FMT efficacy in one preliminary study, they write.

In a small human study, fecal filtrate from healthy donors who had bacteriophages but no live bacteria successfully treated five patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write.

“Therefore, the idea that viruses may play a role is very provocative,” write Dr. Yadegar’s team in their statement.

It’s important to note that these studies are associative, which means they can’t definitively answer the question of how or whether viruses play a role, Dr. Yadegar’s team added.

Researchers “know even less about how fungi may or may not play a role,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. However, in early research that involved patients who had successfully undergone FMT for C. difficile, there was higher relative abundance of Saccharomyces and Aspergillus, whereas Candida, if prominent, may impede response, they write in their article.

Additionally, to explore whether live bacteria are necessary for FMT to work, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues informed this news organization that they are conducting a study “comparing traditional FMT to a fecal filtrate that contains no live bacteria, but has all other components, to see if we can achieve similar success rates in recurrent C. difficile infection.”
 

Repeat treatment for sustained response

Dr. Yadegar’s team offered another important takeaway: A single FMT treatment will not sustain a positive response, especially when treating chronic noncommunicable conditions in which intestinal dysbiosis may play a role. Repeat treatment will be needed, as with other chronic conditions. This has been shown even in C. difficile infection.

“Recent studies have documented a significant advantage of repeated FMT over single FMT on the cure rates of recurrent C. difficile,” especially for patients with inflammatory bowel disorder, Dr. Yadegar’s team told this news organization.

“What we don’t know is which patient is likely to respond to microbial-based therapy, or what the dose or frequency should be, or which bacteria are responsible for the effects,” Dr. Yadegar and team said.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues are examining whether FMT could be refined to improve its success against other diseases. This may involve selecting specific donors, monitoring the gut microbiome of both donors and recipients, or using a specific means of delivery, such as lyophilized capsules, Dr. Ianiro said.

A response to FMT for chronic, noncommunicable disorders typically is not sustained long term, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues. However, they add that “sequential transplants have been applied in this setting with promising results, suggesting that chronic modulation of the patient microbiome may be beneficial in noncommunicable chronic disorders.” Dr. Porcari and colleagues point to the success of repeated, long-term FMT in studies of patients with ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The use of cutting-edge technologies for microbiome assessment and a change in the view of FMT as only an acute, single-use therapy could improve FMT protocols and outcomes for noncommunicable conditions, they write.
 

Expanding FMT beyond C. difficile

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ article “really breaks down what is known about the mechanisms of FMT in C. difficile infection, which is important as other live biotherapeutic products are developed,” Colleen Kelly, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who was not involved with the reviews, said in an interview.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues concur. They note in a press release that as the mechanisms behind FMT success are understood, that information should be used to design new standardized therapies.

“Although highly effective, there are substantial drawbacks with [FMT], including infectious risks and sparse long-term safety data,” they write. “Better treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infections that are targeted, safe, and donor-independent are thus desired.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first fecal microbiota product, Rebyota, to prevent recurrence of C. difficile. More recently, in April 2023, the FDA approved Vowst, a pill for treating recurrent C. difficile infections.

Dr. Kelly also noted that the article by Dr. Yadegar and colleagues “may help us understand why a small percentage of patients fail to achieve cure after FMT.”

Regarding Dr. Porcari and colleagues’ article, Dr. Kelly said, “There is a lot of hope that FMT or other gut microbiome therapies will be beneficial for conditions outside of C. difficile.

“They do a good job reviewing the state of the science of FMT and highlight the many unknowns around the use of FMT in conditions outside of C. difficile,” added Dr. Kelly, who has been using FMT to treat C. difficile for more than 15 years.

Data supporting FMT for conditions such as ulcerative colitis and autism are compelling, Dr. Kelly acknowledged. But in her view, FMT isn’t ready for “prime time” outside of C. difficile – at least not yet.

“Academic investigators and those in industry are actively conducting research in many non–C. difficile indications, and I predict we will see the emergence of gut microbiome–based therapies for other indications within the next 5-10 years,” Dr. Kelly said.

Dr. Yadegar reports no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor of the Yadegar study has served on the adjudication board for Finch Therapeutics and has received consulting fees and a speaking honorarium from Rebiotix/Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ianiro reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kelly has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and is one of the principal investigators for the FMT National Patient Registry funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is needed to further improve its effectiveness, according to two recent reviews published in Cell Host and Microbe.

Both research teams agree that more needs to be known about how various underexplored factors – such as the patient’s diet and genetic background, how closely the donor’s microbial composition matches the patient’s existing microbiome, and the presence of nonbacterial gut inhabitants like viruses and fungi – affect FMT success, according to a press release.

FMT is most often used to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, which don’t always respond to antibiotics. Success rates range from 60% to 90%, depending on the administration route and study design, notes an international research team led by Abbas Yadegar, PhD, a medical bacteriologist at the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

The understanding of how FMT works is incomplete, however, and the reasons some patients fail to benefit is unclear, note Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. Little attention has been paid to the role that other components of the patient’s microbiome, along with outside factors, play in the treatment’s success, they add.

“We wanted other researchers to look beyond changes in stool microbial composition and function, which have been the focus of research in the past few years,” Dr. Yadegar’s team said in a statement provided to this news organization.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ review of more than 130 studies summarizes recent evidence on the mechanisms contributing to FMT success against recurrent C. difficile infection, highlights knowledge gaps, and proposes future research directions in the field.

Factors that influence FMT’s effectiveness and the potential the procedure holds for treatment of other diseases associated with gut dysbiosis are the subject of a review of 149 studies by a team of researchers led by Serena Porcari, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Rome.

“Our main goal was not only to unravel the different mechanisms of FMT efficacy but also to introduce some mindset shifts that are needed to bring FMT forward, mainly covering the gap that exists between basic scientists and clinicians,” Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher in digestive diseases who works with Dr. Porcari and is the review’s lead author, told this news organization.
 

Engraftment may influence success

Engraftment of donor microbial strains in recipients appears to be key to the therapeutic success of FMT, both reviews note.

Three factors influence engraftment: the donor’s bacteria fitness relative to the recipient, the bacteria already present in the recipient, and whether antibiotics are used prior to FMT to open a niche for the incoming donor microbes, according to Dr. Yadegar and colleagues.

How to calculate strain engraftment has not yet been standardized in the field, and the number of strains detected in the recipient’s fecal sample is dependent on the depth of sequencing techniques, Dr. Porcari and colleagues note.

The use of whole-genome sequencing has enabled more precise evaluation of engraftment, they add.

“With this approach, microbial engraftment has been associated with clinical success, regardless of the disease, in a large metagenomic metanalysis of 24 FMT trials and almost 1,400 fecal samples,” Dr. Porcari and colleagues write. However, these results have not been replicated, likely because of differences between the studies.

More study on the topic is needed, both articles note.

“Because the recent metagenomics studies compared pre- and post-FMT only in cases with successful treatment outcomes, it is not possible to link engraftment to clinical outcomes,” Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write in their statement to this news organization.
 

A closer look at donor-recipient pairings

Clinicians usually enlist healthy, carefully screened individuals as FMT donors.

However, both research groups conclude that fine-scale taxonomic and metabolic analyses of donor and recipient microbiomes would better inform clinical decisions, especially when treating diseases other than C. difficile.

This may call for a more personalized approach to choosing donor-recipient pairings. Investigators should assess the patient’s diet and genetic background and how closely the donor’s microbiome matches that of the patient.

“Most studies focused on profiling stool samples before and after FMT without also including functional analyses; therefore, there are still a lot of aspects of host microbial interactions that remain unknown,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues in their statement.

Ecologic factors, including diet and host genetics, are often not included in clinical studies of C. difficile, but they “may potentially be the missing links” to treatment failure in the small portion of patients whose condition doesn’t respond to FMT, they write.

Pairing donor-recipient combinations on the basis of dietary patterns and preferences could improve FMT efficacy because the donor microbiota would be preadapted to the recipient’s diet, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write. The team is examining how donor and recipient diet may affect outcomes.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues add that while some studies support the existence of shared characteristics that make up super-donors, others found that the optimal donor is more patient specific. They call for personalized selection strategies that employ microbiome sequencing tools rather than a “one stool fits all” approach.

Currently, many clinicians aren’t familiar with microbiome sequencing and analysis, but they’ll need to be in the near future, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

“Identifying microbiome characteristics that maximize strain engraftment in the FMT will allow clinicians to select the best donor for each single patient,” they write.
 

The possible role of viruses and fungi

In FMT research, investigators tend to focus on the bacteria in the human microbiome. However, viruses and fungi also appear to play a role, both articles note.

“Other microbial kingdoms that inhabit the intestine should be taken into account when considering predictors of post-FMT microbial transfer,” write Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

Although few studies have examined the gut virome’s impact on FMT effectiveness against C. difficile, the existing research, although limited, indicates that bacteriophage viruses could play a role, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues note. For example, high levels of donor-derived Caudoviralesbacteriophages in recipients were associated with FMT efficacy in one preliminary study, they write.

In a small human study, fecal filtrate from healthy donors who had bacteriophages but no live bacteria successfully treated five patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write.

“Therefore, the idea that viruses may play a role is very provocative,” write Dr. Yadegar’s team in their statement.

It’s important to note that these studies are associative, which means they can’t definitively answer the question of how or whether viruses play a role, Dr. Yadegar’s team added.

Researchers “know even less about how fungi may or may not play a role,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. However, in early research that involved patients who had successfully undergone FMT for C. difficile, there was higher relative abundance of Saccharomyces and Aspergillus, whereas Candida, if prominent, may impede response, they write in their article.

Additionally, to explore whether live bacteria are necessary for FMT to work, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues informed this news organization that they are conducting a study “comparing traditional FMT to a fecal filtrate that contains no live bacteria, but has all other components, to see if we can achieve similar success rates in recurrent C. difficile infection.”
 

Repeat treatment for sustained response

Dr. Yadegar’s team offered another important takeaway: A single FMT treatment will not sustain a positive response, especially when treating chronic noncommunicable conditions in which intestinal dysbiosis may play a role. Repeat treatment will be needed, as with other chronic conditions. This has been shown even in C. difficile infection.

“Recent studies have documented a significant advantage of repeated FMT over single FMT on the cure rates of recurrent C. difficile,” especially for patients with inflammatory bowel disorder, Dr. Yadegar’s team told this news organization.

“What we don’t know is which patient is likely to respond to microbial-based therapy, or what the dose or frequency should be, or which bacteria are responsible for the effects,” Dr. Yadegar and team said.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues are examining whether FMT could be refined to improve its success against other diseases. This may involve selecting specific donors, monitoring the gut microbiome of both donors and recipients, or using a specific means of delivery, such as lyophilized capsules, Dr. Ianiro said.

A response to FMT for chronic, noncommunicable disorders typically is not sustained long term, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues. However, they add that “sequential transplants have been applied in this setting with promising results, suggesting that chronic modulation of the patient microbiome may be beneficial in noncommunicable chronic disorders.” Dr. Porcari and colleagues point to the success of repeated, long-term FMT in studies of patients with ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The use of cutting-edge technologies for microbiome assessment and a change in the view of FMT as only an acute, single-use therapy could improve FMT protocols and outcomes for noncommunicable conditions, they write.
 

Expanding FMT beyond C. difficile

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ article “really breaks down what is known about the mechanisms of FMT in C. difficile infection, which is important as other live biotherapeutic products are developed,” Colleen Kelly, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who was not involved with the reviews, said in an interview.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues concur. They note in a press release that as the mechanisms behind FMT success are understood, that information should be used to design new standardized therapies.

“Although highly effective, there are substantial drawbacks with [FMT], including infectious risks and sparse long-term safety data,” they write. “Better treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infections that are targeted, safe, and donor-independent are thus desired.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first fecal microbiota product, Rebyota, to prevent recurrence of C. difficile. More recently, in April 2023, the FDA approved Vowst, a pill for treating recurrent C. difficile infections.

Dr. Kelly also noted that the article by Dr. Yadegar and colleagues “may help us understand why a small percentage of patients fail to achieve cure after FMT.”

Regarding Dr. Porcari and colleagues’ article, Dr. Kelly said, “There is a lot of hope that FMT or other gut microbiome therapies will be beneficial for conditions outside of C. difficile.

“They do a good job reviewing the state of the science of FMT and highlight the many unknowns around the use of FMT in conditions outside of C. difficile,” added Dr. Kelly, who has been using FMT to treat C. difficile for more than 15 years.

Data supporting FMT for conditions such as ulcerative colitis and autism are compelling, Dr. Kelly acknowledged. But in her view, FMT isn’t ready for “prime time” outside of C. difficile – at least not yet.

“Academic investigators and those in industry are actively conducting research in many non–C. difficile indications, and I predict we will see the emergence of gut microbiome–based therapies for other indications within the next 5-10 years,” Dr. Kelly said.

Dr. Yadegar reports no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor of the Yadegar study has served on the adjudication board for Finch Therapeutics and has received consulting fees and a speaking honorarium from Rebiotix/Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ianiro reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kelly has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and is one of the principal investigators for the FMT National Patient Registry funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is needed to further improve its effectiveness, according to two recent reviews published in Cell Host and Microbe.

Both research teams agree that more needs to be known about how various underexplored factors – such as the patient’s diet and genetic background, how closely the donor’s microbial composition matches the patient’s existing microbiome, and the presence of nonbacterial gut inhabitants like viruses and fungi – affect FMT success, according to a press release.

FMT is most often used to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, which don’t always respond to antibiotics. Success rates range from 60% to 90%, depending on the administration route and study design, notes an international research team led by Abbas Yadegar, PhD, a medical bacteriologist at the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

The understanding of how FMT works is incomplete, however, and the reasons some patients fail to benefit is unclear, note Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. Little attention has been paid to the role that other components of the patient’s microbiome, along with outside factors, play in the treatment’s success, they add.

“We wanted other researchers to look beyond changes in stool microbial composition and function, which have been the focus of research in the past few years,” Dr. Yadegar’s team said in a statement provided to this news organization.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ review of more than 130 studies summarizes recent evidence on the mechanisms contributing to FMT success against recurrent C. difficile infection, highlights knowledge gaps, and proposes future research directions in the field.

Factors that influence FMT’s effectiveness and the potential the procedure holds for treatment of other diseases associated with gut dysbiosis are the subject of a review of 149 studies by a team of researchers led by Serena Porcari, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Rome.

“Our main goal was not only to unravel the different mechanisms of FMT efficacy but also to introduce some mindset shifts that are needed to bring FMT forward, mainly covering the gap that exists between basic scientists and clinicians,” Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher in digestive diseases who works with Dr. Porcari and is the review’s lead author, told this news organization.
 

Engraftment may influence success

Engraftment of donor microbial strains in recipients appears to be key to the therapeutic success of FMT, both reviews note.

Three factors influence engraftment: the donor’s bacteria fitness relative to the recipient, the bacteria already present in the recipient, and whether antibiotics are used prior to FMT to open a niche for the incoming donor microbes, according to Dr. Yadegar and colleagues.

How to calculate strain engraftment has not yet been standardized in the field, and the number of strains detected in the recipient’s fecal sample is dependent on the depth of sequencing techniques, Dr. Porcari and colleagues note.

The use of whole-genome sequencing has enabled more precise evaluation of engraftment, they add.

“With this approach, microbial engraftment has been associated with clinical success, regardless of the disease, in a large metagenomic metanalysis of 24 FMT trials and almost 1,400 fecal samples,” Dr. Porcari and colleagues write. However, these results have not been replicated, likely because of differences between the studies.

More study on the topic is needed, both articles note.

“Because the recent metagenomics studies compared pre- and post-FMT only in cases with successful treatment outcomes, it is not possible to link engraftment to clinical outcomes,” Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write in their statement to this news organization.
 

A closer look at donor-recipient pairings

Clinicians usually enlist healthy, carefully screened individuals as FMT donors.

However, both research groups conclude that fine-scale taxonomic and metabolic analyses of donor and recipient microbiomes would better inform clinical decisions, especially when treating diseases other than C. difficile.

This may call for a more personalized approach to choosing donor-recipient pairings. Investigators should assess the patient’s diet and genetic background and how closely the donor’s microbiome matches that of the patient.

“Most studies focused on profiling stool samples before and after FMT without also including functional analyses; therefore, there are still a lot of aspects of host microbial interactions that remain unknown,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues in their statement.

Ecologic factors, including diet and host genetics, are often not included in clinical studies of C. difficile, but they “may potentially be the missing links” to treatment failure in the small portion of patients whose condition doesn’t respond to FMT, they write.

Pairing donor-recipient combinations on the basis of dietary patterns and preferences could improve FMT efficacy because the donor microbiota would be preadapted to the recipient’s diet, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write. The team is examining how donor and recipient diet may affect outcomes.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues add that while some studies support the existence of shared characteristics that make up super-donors, others found that the optimal donor is more patient specific. They call for personalized selection strategies that employ microbiome sequencing tools rather than a “one stool fits all” approach.

Currently, many clinicians aren’t familiar with microbiome sequencing and analysis, but they’ll need to be in the near future, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

“Identifying microbiome characteristics that maximize strain engraftment in the FMT will allow clinicians to select the best donor for each single patient,” they write.
 

The possible role of viruses and fungi

In FMT research, investigators tend to focus on the bacteria in the human microbiome. However, viruses and fungi also appear to play a role, both articles note.

“Other microbial kingdoms that inhabit the intestine should be taken into account when considering predictors of post-FMT microbial transfer,” write Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

Although few studies have examined the gut virome’s impact on FMT effectiveness against C. difficile, the existing research, although limited, indicates that bacteriophage viruses could play a role, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues note. For example, high levels of donor-derived Caudoviralesbacteriophages in recipients were associated with FMT efficacy in one preliminary study, they write.

In a small human study, fecal filtrate from healthy donors who had bacteriophages but no live bacteria successfully treated five patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write.

“Therefore, the idea that viruses may play a role is very provocative,” write Dr. Yadegar’s team in their statement.

It’s important to note that these studies are associative, which means they can’t definitively answer the question of how or whether viruses play a role, Dr. Yadegar’s team added.

Researchers “know even less about how fungi may or may not play a role,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. However, in early research that involved patients who had successfully undergone FMT for C. difficile, there was higher relative abundance of Saccharomyces and Aspergillus, whereas Candida, if prominent, may impede response, they write in their article.

Additionally, to explore whether live bacteria are necessary for FMT to work, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues informed this news organization that they are conducting a study “comparing traditional FMT to a fecal filtrate that contains no live bacteria, but has all other components, to see if we can achieve similar success rates in recurrent C. difficile infection.”
 

Repeat treatment for sustained response

Dr. Yadegar’s team offered another important takeaway: A single FMT treatment will not sustain a positive response, especially when treating chronic noncommunicable conditions in which intestinal dysbiosis may play a role. Repeat treatment will be needed, as with other chronic conditions. This has been shown even in C. difficile infection.

“Recent studies have documented a significant advantage of repeated FMT over single FMT on the cure rates of recurrent C. difficile,” especially for patients with inflammatory bowel disorder, Dr. Yadegar’s team told this news organization.

“What we don’t know is which patient is likely to respond to microbial-based therapy, or what the dose or frequency should be, or which bacteria are responsible for the effects,” Dr. Yadegar and team said.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues are examining whether FMT could be refined to improve its success against other diseases. This may involve selecting specific donors, monitoring the gut microbiome of both donors and recipients, or using a specific means of delivery, such as lyophilized capsules, Dr. Ianiro said.

A response to FMT for chronic, noncommunicable disorders typically is not sustained long term, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues. However, they add that “sequential transplants have been applied in this setting with promising results, suggesting that chronic modulation of the patient microbiome may be beneficial in noncommunicable chronic disorders.” Dr. Porcari and colleagues point to the success of repeated, long-term FMT in studies of patients with ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The use of cutting-edge technologies for microbiome assessment and a change in the view of FMT as only an acute, single-use therapy could improve FMT protocols and outcomes for noncommunicable conditions, they write.
 

Expanding FMT beyond C. difficile

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ article “really breaks down what is known about the mechanisms of FMT in C. difficile infection, which is important as other live biotherapeutic products are developed,” Colleen Kelly, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who was not involved with the reviews, said in an interview.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues concur. They note in a press release that as the mechanisms behind FMT success are understood, that information should be used to design new standardized therapies.

“Although highly effective, there are substantial drawbacks with [FMT], including infectious risks and sparse long-term safety data,” they write. “Better treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infections that are targeted, safe, and donor-independent are thus desired.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first fecal microbiota product, Rebyota, to prevent recurrence of C. difficile. More recently, in April 2023, the FDA approved Vowst, a pill for treating recurrent C. difficile infections.

Dr. Kelly also noted that the article by Dr. Yadegar and colleagues “may help us understand why a small percentage of patients fail to achieve cure after FMT.”

Regarding Dr. Porcari and colleagues’ article, Dr. Kelly said, “There is a lot of hope that FMT or other gut microbiome therapies will be beneficial for conditions outside of C. difficile.

“They do a good job reviewing the state of the science of FMT and highlight the many unknowns around the use of FMT in conditions outside of C. difficile,” added Dr. Kelly, who has been using FMT to treat C. difficile for more than 15 years.

Data supporting FMT for conditions such as ulcerative colitis and autism are compelling, Dr. Kelly acknowledged. But in her view, FMT isn’t ready for “prime time” outside of C. difficile – at least not yet.

“Academic investigators and those in industry are actively conducting research in many non–C. difficile indications, and I predict we will see the emergence of gut microbiome–based therapies for other indications within the next 5-10 years,” Dr. Kelly said.

Dr. Yadegar reports no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor of the Yadegar study has served on the adjudication board for Finch Therapeutics and has received consulting fees and a speaking honorarium from Rebiotix/Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ianiro reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kelly has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and is one of the principal investigators for the FMT National Patient Registry funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?