MDedge Infectious Disease

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

There’s mixed news from Pfizer on results from their CLOVER trial (CLOstridium difficile Vaccine Efficacy TRial), a phase 3 study involving 17,500 adults aged 50 and older that evaluated their candidate vaccine (PF-06425090) against Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) for the prevention of C. diff. infection (CDI).

The bad news is that the trial didn’t meet its efficacy endpoint – the prevention of primary CDI. According to a Pfizer press release, “Vaccine efficacy under the primary endpoint was 31% (96.4%, confidence interval -38.7, 66.6) following the third dose and 28.6% (96.4%, CI -28.4, 61.0) following the second dose. For all CDI cases recorded at 14 days post dose 3, vaccine efficacy was 49%, 47%, and 31% up to 12 months, 24 months, and at final analysis, respectively.”

gaetan stoffel/gettyimages

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

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

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

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

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

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H. pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

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

If you’re among those people in the United States who never had COVID-19, how should you think about your risk?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of people in the United States are in the never-got-COVID category.

The CDC estimated that by the end of January, 43.4% in the United States had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 triggered by infection, not by vaccination — suggesting nearly 60% of people have never been infected.

Now mask mandates are lifting, and daily case and death numbers are plunging. According to the New York Times tracker, new cases are down 51% for the past 2 weeks, and deaths have fallen 30% in that period.

So as those who have so far escaped the virus venture further out into reopened environments, should they worry more or less about risk than their previously infected counterparts?

Some experts weigh in with caution against feeling invincible.
 

No “suit of armor”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that science has not been able to determine why some people have been able to be stay COVID-free when the virus was raging and exposure was ubiquitous.

He said it’s important to remember that though some people think they have never had COVID, they may have been asymptomatic or attributed mild symptoms to something else.

“People may have conceivably — but we can’t define them yet — different capacities to ward off viruses or bacteria,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Could it be that some people have a better immune system or genetic component or environmental reason that they are less susceptible to infectious disease? “We can’t define that in 2022 medicine, but it could be,” he said.

More is known about why people with the same COVID exposure may have different levels of illness severity.

“They’re more likely to get seriously ill if they have a list of predisposing conditions — if they’re older, if they’re frail, if they have underlying illness or are obese. All of those things clearly impair the body’s response to virus,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He warns those who have never been infected, though, not to assume they have “a suit of armor.”

All should continue to follow guidance on getting vaccinated, and those vaccinated should continue to get boosted, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Clearly, the data show that if you are vaccinated and boosted, you’re protected much more securely against severe disease,” he said.

If the never-COVIDs develop a respiratory infection, they should still get tested for COVID, Dr. Schaffner said.

He said while both vaccines and previous natural infection offer protection, the duration of that protection is not yet known.

“We have to stay tuned,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a recommendation in the future to get a booster annually or something like that. We need to be open to those down the road.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, says it’s unclear why some people have been able to avoid COVID.

“The explanation is likely multifactorial and involves behaviors as well as possible idiosyncrasies with their immune systems that are genetically based,” he said. “It also may be the case that inapparent infections occurred and went undiagnosed.”

Dr. Adalja agrees, though, that this isn’t the time to get overconfident with risk-taking where COVID is concerned.

“People who have not knowingly been infected with COVID should be vaccinated, and after that, be assured that they are protected against serious disease from this virus,” he said.
 

Genetic protection?

A new study in Nature Genetics explains a potential genetic relationship. Study authors found evidence that levels of expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) – which helps regulate blood pressure, wound healing, and inflammation, but has also been shown to serve as an entry point into cells for some coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 — influence COVID-19 risk.

Manuel A. Ferreira, PhD, an executive director for analytic genetics at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that ACE2 receptors — what he calls the “gateways” for SARS-CoV-2 to enter the body — are different in people who have inherited a particular allele.

The researchers have found that that allele is associated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“It’s quite substantial -- a 40% risk reduction if you carry the allele that reduces ACE2 expression,” he said. They were not able to discern from this study, however, whether that could predict severity of disease.

The team also looked at a series of six genetic variants elsewhere in the genome and developed a risk score to see if it was possible to predict who might be more susceptible to severe COVID.

Dr. Ferreira said the score only slightly improved predictive abilities beyond factors such as age, sex, weight, and comorbidities. Further information will help hone the ability to predict the likelihood of developing severe disease on the basis of genetics, Ferreira said.

“As we identify more genetic risk factors for COVID — variants like the ACE2 variant that will affect your risk of having COVID — the more informative the risk score will be,” he said.

Several authors of the Nature Genetics article are current and/or former employees of AncestryDNA and may hold equity in AncestryDNA. Several are Regeneron employees and/or hold stock in the company. Dr. Ferreira is an employee of Regeneron and holds stock in the company. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Adalja report no relevant financial relationships.

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

If you’re among those people in the United States who never had COVID-19, how should you think about your risk?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of people in the United States are in the never-got-COVID category.

The CDC estimated that by the end of January, 43.4% in the United States had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 triggered by infection, not by vaccination — suggesting nearly 60% of people have never been infected.

Now mask mandates are lifting, and daily case and death numbers are plunging. According to the New York Times tracker, new cases are down 51% for the past 2 weeks, and deaths have fallen 30% in that period.

So as those who have so far escaped the virus venture further out into reopened environments, should they worry more or less about risk than their previously infected counterparts?

Some experts weigh in with caution against feeling invincible.
 

No “suit of armor”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that science has not been able to determine why some people have been able to be stay COVID-free when the virus was raging and exposure was ubiquitous.

He said it’s important to remember that though some people think they have never had COVID, they may have been asymptomatic or attributed mild symptoms to something else.

“People may have conceivably — but we can’t define them yet — different capacities to ward off viruses or bacteria,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Could it be that some people have a better immune system or genetic component or environmental reason that they are less susceptible to infectious disease? “We can’t define that in 2022 medicine, but it could be,” he said.

More is known about why people with the same COVID exposure may have different levels of illness severity.

“They’re more likely to get seriously ill if they have a list of predisposing conditions — if they’re older, if they’re frail, if they have underlying illness or are obese. All of those things clearly impair the body’s response to virus,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He warns those who have never been infected, though, not to assume they have “a suit of armor.”

All should continue to follow guidance on getting vaccinated, and those vaccinated should continue to get boosted, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Clearly, the data show that if you are vaccinated and boosted, you’re protected much more securely against severe disease,” he said.

If the never-COVIDs develop a respiratory infection, they should still get tested for COVID, Dr. Schaffner said.

He said while both vaccines and previous natural infection offer protection, the duration of that protection is not yet known.

“We have to stay tuned,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a recommendation in the future to get a booster annually or something like that. We need to be open to those down the road.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, says it’s unclear why some people have been able to avoid COVID.

“The explanation is likely multifactorial and involves behaviors as well as possible idiosyncrasies with their immune systems that are genetically based,” he said. “It also may be the case that inapparent infections occurred and went undiagnosed.”

Dr. Adalja agrees, though, that this isn’t the time to get overconfident with risk-taking where COVID is concerned.

“People who have not knowingly been infected with COVID should be vaccinated, and after that, be assured that they are protected against serious disease from this virus,” he said.
 

Genetic protection?

A new study in Nature Genetics explains a potential genetic relationship. Study authors found evidence that levels of expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) – which helps regulate blood pressure, wound healing, and inflammation, but has also been shown to serve as an entry point into cells for some coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 — influence COVID-19 risk.

Manuel A. Ferreira, PhD, an executive director for analytic genetics at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that ACE2 receptors — what he calls the “gateways” for SARS-CoV-2 to enter the body — are different in people who have inherited a particular allele.

The researchers have found that that allele is associated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“It’s quite substantial -- a 40% risk reduction if you carry the allele that reduces ACE2 expression,” he said. They were not able to discern from this study, however, whether that could predict severity of disease.

The team also looked at a series of six genetic variants elsewhere in the genome and developed a risk score to see if it was possible to predict who might be more susceptible to severe COVID.

Dr. Ferreira said the score only slightly improved predictive abilities beyond factors such as age, sex, weight, and comorbidities. Further information will help hone the ability to predict the likelihood of developing severe disease on the basis of genetics, Ferreira said.

“As we identify more genetic risk factors for COVID — variants like the ACE2 variant that will affect your risk of having COVID — the more informative the risk score will be,” he said.

Several authors of the Nature Genetics article are current and/or former employees of AncestryDNA and may hold equity in AncestryDNA. Several are Regeneron employees and/or hold stock in the company. Dr. Ferreira is an employee of Regeneron and holds stock in the company. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Adalja report no relevant financial relationships.

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

If you’re among those people in the United States who never had COVID-19, how should you think about your risk?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of people in the United States are in the never-got-COVID category.

The CDC estimated that by the end of January, 43.4% in the United States had developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 triggered by infection, not by vaccination — suggesting nearly 60% of people have never been infected.

Now mask mandates are lifting, and daily case and death numbers are plunging. According to the New York Times tracker, new cases are down 51% for the past 2 weeks, and deaths have fallen 30% in that period.

So as those who have so far escaped the virus venture further out into reopened environments, should they worry more or less about risk than their previously infected counterparts?

Some experts weigh in with caution against feeling invincible.
 

No “suit of armor”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that science has not been able to determine why some people have been able to be stay COVID-free when the virus was raging and exposure was ubiquitous.

He said it’s important to remember that though some people think they have never had COVID, they may have been asymptomatic or attributed mild symptoms to something else.

“People may have conceivably — but we can’t define them yet — different capacities to ward off viruses or bacteria,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Could it be that some people have a better immune system or genetic component or environmental reason that they are less susceptible to infectious disease? “We can’t define that in 2022 medicine, but it could be,” he said.

More is known about why people with the same COVID exposure may have different levels of illness severity.

“They’re more likely to get seriously ill if they have a list of predisposing conditions — if they’re older, if they’re frail, if they have underlying illness or are obese. All of those things clearly impair the body’s response to virus,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He warns those who have never been infected, though, not to assume they have “a suit of armor.”

All should continue to follow guidance on getting vaccinated, and those vaccinated should continue to get boosted, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Clearly, the data show that if you are vaccinated and boosted, you’re protected much more securely against severe disease,” he said.

If the never-COVIDs develop a respiratory infection, they should still get tested for COVID, Dr. Schaffner said.

He said while both vaccines and previous natural infection offer protection, the duration of that protection is not yet known.

“We have to stay tuned,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a recommendation in the future to get a booster annually or something like that. We need to be open to those down the road.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, says it’s unclear why some people have been able to avoid COVID.

“The explanation is likely multifactorial and involves behaviors as well as possible idiosyncrasies with their immune systems that are genetically based,” he said. “It also may be the case that inapparent infections occurred and went undiagnosed.”

Dr. Adalja agrees, though, that this isn’t the time to get overconfident with risk-taking where COVID is concerned.

“People who have not knowingly been infected with COVID should be vaccinated, and after that, be assured that they are protected against serious disease from this virus,” he said.
 

Genetic protection?

A new study in Nature Genetics explains a potential genetic relationship. Study authors found evidence that levels of expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) – which helps regulate blood pressure, wound healing, and inflammation, but has also been shown to serve as an entry point into cells for some coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 — influence COVID-19 risk.

Manuel A. Ferreira, PhD, an executive director for analytic genetics at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that ACE2 receptors — what he calls the “gateways” for SARS-CoV-2 to enter the body — are different in people who have inherited a particular allele.

The researchers have found that that allele is associated with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“It’s quite substantial -- a 40% risk reduction if you carry the allele that reduces ACE2 expression,” he said. They were not able to discern from this study, however, whether that could predict severity of disease.

The team also looked at a series of six genetic variants elsewhere in the genome and developed a risk score to see if it was possible to predict who might be more susceptible to severe COVID.

Dr. Ferreira said the score only slightly improved predictive abilities beyond factors such as age, sex, weight, and comorbidities. Further information will help hone the ability to predict the likelihood of developing severe disease on the basis of genetics, Ferreira said.

“As we identify more genetic risk factors for COVID — variants like the ACE2 variant that will affect your risk of having COVID — the more informative the risk score will be,” he said.

Several authors of the Nature Genetics article are current and/or former employees of AncestryDNA and may hold equity in AncestryDNA. Several are Regeneron employees and/or hold stock in the company. Dr. Ferreira is an employee of Regeneron and holds stock in the company. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Adalja report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pseudomonas aeruginosa persisted in the airways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 23 patients over a 1-year period.

P. aeruginosa is cultured in as many as 20% of bacterial exacerbations and has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with COPD, wrote Josefin Eklöf, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues. However, its patterns and characteristics have not been well studied, and researchers proposed that P. aerunginosa persists in COPD patients in part because of genetic adaptations in the genes related to antibiotic resistance.

In a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the researchers identified 23 consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing randomized clinical trial at four sites in Denmark between Jan. 2018 and Jan. 2020. Participants were randomized 1:1 to targeted antipseudomonal antibiotic treatment for 14 days (between visit day 1 and visit day 14) or no antipseudomonal treatment. Sputum samples were collected at baseline on day 1 and on days 14, 30, 60, 90, and 365.

The researchers sequenced isolates from 23 adult patients over 365 days of follow-up. The recurrence of P. aeruginosa occurred in 19 patients (83%) during this period. Ultimately, a total of 153 isolates were analyzed. The researchers found that each patient carried their own unique lineage, with the except of one patient in whom two distinct lineages were identified.

“Independent mutation of the same gene across multiple lineages may be the result of positive selection of adaptive mutations,” Dr. Eklöf and colleagues wrote. They found 38 genes for P. aeruginosa that were mutated in at least two lineages, which suggested adaptive mutations. Some of the more frequently mutated genes were those important to antibiotic resistance and chronic infections, the researchers said. Specifically, mutations occurred in 40 of 140 pathoadaptive genes, compared with 265 of 5,572 other genes (P < .001). In addition, the 24 total lineages carried 4-6 antibiotic resistance genes, and no evidence suggested that lineages acquired or lost these genes during carriage.

Overall, the results indicate that the recurrence of P. aeruginosa was caused by persistence of the same clonal lineage in each patient. “This pattern of persistence was associated with genetic adaptation related to phenotypes considered important for P. aeruginosa infections,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small number of samples and isolates per sample, the follow-up of only 1 year, and the inability to account for mutations in the early stage because few patients were naive to P. aeruginosa at the start of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the relatively large and well-defined study population and high rate of sampling compliance, they said.

Overall, “the findings warrant research to improve therapy, including trial data on possible clinical benefits of attempting antibiotic eradication of P. aeruginosa in this vulnerable group of patients,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark and the Research committee at Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa persisted in the airways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 23 patients over a 1-year period.

P. aeruginosa is cultured in as many as 20% of bacterial exacerbations and has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with COPD, wrote Josefin Eklöf, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues. However, its patterns and characteristics have not been well studied, and researchers proposed that P. aerunginosa persists in COPD patients in part because of genetic adaptations in the genes related to antibiotic resistance.

In a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the researchers identified 23 consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing randomized clinical trial at four sites in Denmark between Jan. 2018 and Jan. 2020. Participants were randomized 1:1 to targeted antipseudomonal antibiotic treatment for 14 days (between visit day 1 and visit day 14) or no antipseudomonal treatment. Sputum samples were collected at baseline on day 1 and on days 14, 30, 60, 90, and 365.

The researchers sequenced isolates from 23 adult patients over 365 days of follow-up. The recurrence of P. aeruginosa occurred in 19 patients (83%) during this period. Ultimately, a total of 153 isolates were analyzed. The researchers found that each patient carried their own unique lineage, with the except of one patient in whom two distinct lineages were identified.

“Independent mutation of the same gene across multiple lineages may be the result of positive selection of adaptive mutations,” Dr. Eklöf and colleagues wrote. They found 38 genes for P. aeruginosa that were mutated in at least two lineages, which suggested adaptive mutations. Some of the more frequently mutated genes were those important to antibiotic resistance and chronic infections, the researchers said. Specifically, mutations occurred in 40 of 140 pathoadaptive genes, compared with 265 of 5,572 other genes (P < .001). In addition, the 24 total lineages carried 4-6 antibiotic resistance genes, and no evidence suggested that lineages acquired or lost these genes during carriage.

Overall, the results indicate that the recurrence of P. aeruginosa was caused by persistence of the same clonal lineage in each patient. “This pattern of persistence was associated with genetic adaptation related to phenotypes considered important for P. aeruginosa infections,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small number of samples and isolates per sample, the follow-up of only 1 year, and the inability to account for mutations in the early stage because few patients were naive to P. aeruginosa at the start of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the relatively large and well-defined study population and high rate of sampling compliance, they said.

Overall, “the findings warrant research to improve therapy, including trial data on possible clinical benefits of attempting antibiotic eradication of P. aeruginosa in this vulnerable group of patients,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark and the Research committee at Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa persisted in the airways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 23 patients over a 1-year period.

P. aeruginosa is cultured in as many as 20% of bacterial exacerbations and has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with COPD, wrote Josefin Eklöf, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues. However, its patterns and characteristics have not been well studied, and researchers proposed that P. aerunginosa persists in COPD patients in part because of genetic adaptations in the genes related to antibiotic resistance.

In a study published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection, the researchers identified 23 consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing randomized clinical trial at four sites in Denmark between Jan. 2018 and Jan. 2020. Participants were randomized 1:1 to targeted antipseudomonal antibiotic treatment for 14 days (between visit day 1 and visit day 14) or no antipseudomonal treatment. Sputum samples were collected at baseline on day 1 and on days 14, 30, 60, 90, and 365.

The researchers sequenced isolates from 23 adult patients over 365 days of follow-up. The recurrence of P. aeruginosa occurred in 19 patients (83%) during this period. Ultimately, a total of 153 isolates were analyzed. The researchers found that each patient carried their own unique lineage, with the except of one patient in whom two distinct lineages were identified.

“Independent mutation of the same gene across multiple lineages may be the result of positive selection of adaptive mutations,” Dr. Eklöf and colleagues wrote. They found 38 genes for P. aeruginosa that were mutated in at least two lineages, which suggested adaptive mutations. Some of the more frequently mutated genes were those important to antibiotic resistance and chronic infections, the researchers said. Specifically, mutations occurred in 40 of 140 pathoadaptive genes, compared with 265 of 5,572 other genes (P < .001). In addition, the 24 total lineages carried 4-6 antibiotic resistance genes, and no evidence suggested that lineages acquired or lost these genes during carriage.

Overall, the results indicate that the recurrence of P. aeruginosa was caused by persistence of the same clonal lineage in each patient. “This pattern of persistence was associated with genetic adaptation related to phenotypes considered important for P. aeruginosa infections,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the relatively small number of samples and isolates per sample, the follow-up of only 1 year, and the inability to account for mutations in the early stage because few patients were naive to P. aeruginosa at the start of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the relatively large and well-defined study population and high rate of sampling compliance, they said.

Overall, “the findings warrant research to improve therapy, including trial data on possible clinical benefits of attempting antibiotic eradication of P. aeruginosa in this vulnerable group of patients,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Independent Research Fund Denmark and the Research committee at Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Even mild cases of COVID-19 are associated with brain changes, including decreased gray matter, an overall reduction in brain volume, and cognitive decline, a new imaging study shows.

In the first study to use magnetic resonance brain imaging, before and after COVID-19, investigators found “greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue-contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex and greater reduction in global brain size.” However, the researchers urge caution when interpreting the findings.

Gwenaëlle Douaud, PhD, Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, and colleagues describe these brain changes as “modest.”

“Whether these abnormal changes are the hallmark of the spread of the pathogenic effects in the brain, or of the virus itself, and whether these may prefigure a future vulnerability of the limbic system in particular, including memory, for these participants, remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were published online March 7 in the journal Nature.
 

Gray matter loss

The investigators analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database with genetic and health information for about 500,000 individuals living in the UK. They identified 785 adults aged 51-81 years who had undergone two brain MRIs about 3 years apart. Of these, 401 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before the second scan.

Participants also completed cognitive tests at the time of both scans.

Biobank centers use identical MRI scans and scanning methods, including six types of MRI scans, to image distinct regions of the brain and brain function. Results showed that although some loss of gray matter over time is normal, individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a 0.2% to 2% brain tissue loss in the parahippocampal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula – all of which are largely involved in the sense of smell.

Participants who had contracted COVID-19 also showed a greater reduction in overall brain volume and a decrease in cognitive function.

Most of those with COVID-19 had only mild or moderate symptoms. However, the findings held even after the researchers excluded patients who had been hospitalized.
 

More research needed

“These findings might help explain why some people experience brain symptoms long after the acute infection,” Max Taquet, PhD, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health BRC senior research fellow, University of Oxford, said in a press release.

Dr. Taquet, who was not a part of the study, noted the causes of these brain changes remain to be determined. Questions remain as to “whether they can be prevented or even reverted, as well as whether similar changes are observed in hospitalized patients,” children, younger adults, and minority groups.

“It is possible that these brain changes are not caused by COVID-19 but represent the natural progression of a disease that itself increased the risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Taquet said.

Other experts expressed concern over the findings and emphasized the need for more research.

“I am very concerned by the alarming use of language in the report with terms such as ‘neurodegenerative,’ “ Alan Carson, MD, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said in a press release. “The size and magnitude of brain changes found is very modest and such changes can be caused by a simple change in mental experience,” Dr. Carson said.

“What this study almost certainly shows is the impact, in terms of neural changes, of being disconnected from one’s sense of smell,” he added.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust Collaborative. Full financial conflict information for the study authors is included in the original article. Dr. Taquet has collaborated previously with some of the investigators.

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

Even mild cases of COVID-19 are associated with brain changes, including decreased gray matter, an overall reduction in brain volume, and cognitive decline, a new imaging study shows.

In the first study to use magnetic resonance brain imaging, before and after COVID-19, investigators found “greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue-contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex and greater reduction in global brain size.” However, the researchers urge caution when interpreting the findings.

Gwenaëlle Douaud, PhD, Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, and colleagues describe these brain changes as “modest.”

“Whether these abnormal changes are the hallmark of the spread of the pathogenic effects in the brain, or of the virus itself, and whether these may prefigure a future vulnerability of the limbic system in particular, including memory, for these participants, remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were published online March 7 in the journal Nature.
 

Gray matter loss

The investigators analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database with genetic and health information for about 500,000 individuals living in the UK. They identified 785 adults aged 51-81 years who had undergone two brain MRIs about 3 years apart. Of these, 401 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before the second scan.

Participants also completed cognitive tests at the time of both scans.

Biobank centers use identical MRI scans and scanning methods, including six types of MRI scans, to image distinct regions of the brain and brain function. Results showed that although some loss of gray matter over time is normal, individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a 0.2% to 2% brain tissue loss in the parahippocampal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula – all of which are largely involved in the sense of smell.

Participants who had contracted COVID-19 also showed a greater reduction in overall brain volume and a decrease in cognitive function.

Most of those with COVID-19 had only mild or moderate symptoms. However, the findings held even after the researchers excluded patients who had been hospitalized.
 

More research needed

“These findings might help explain why some people experience brain symptoms long after the acute infection,” Max Taquet, PhD, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health BRC senior research fellow, University of Oxford, said in a press release.

Dr. Taquet, who was not a part of the study, noted the causes of these brain changes remain to be determined. Questions remain as to “whether they can be prevented or even reverted, as well as whether similar changes are observed in hospitalized patients,” children, younger adults, and minority groups.

“It is possible that these brain changes are not caused by COVID-19 but represent the natural progression of a disease that itself increased the risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Taquet said.

Other experts expressed concern over the findings and emphasized the need for more research.

“I am very concerned by the alarming use of language in the report with terms such as ‘neurodegenerative,’ “ Alan Carson, MD, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said in a press release. “The size and magnitude of brain changes found is very modest and such changes can be caused by a simple change in mental experience,” Dr. Carson said.

“What this study almost certainly shows is the impact, in terms of neural changes, of being disconnected from one’s sense of smell,” he added.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust Collaborative. Full financial conflict information for the study authors is included in the original article. Dr. Taquet has collaborated previously with some of the investigators.

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

Even mild cases of COVID-19 are associated with brain changes, including decreased gray matter, an overall reduction in brain volume, and cognitive decline, a new imaging study shows.

In the first study to use magnetic resonance brain imaging, before and after COVID-19, investigators found “greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue-contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex and greater reduction in global brain size.” However, the researchers urge caution when interpreting the findings.

Gwenaëlle Douaud, PhD, Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, and colleagues describe these brain changes as “modest.”

“Whether these abnormal changes are the hallmark of the spread of the pathogenic effects in the brain, or of the virus itself, and whether these may prefigure a future vulnerability of the limbic system in particular, including memory, for these participants, remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were published online March 7 in the journal Nature.
 

Gray matter loss

The investigators analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database with genetic and health information for about 500,000 individuals living in the UK. They identified 785 adults aged 51-81 years who had undergone two brain MRIs about 3 years apart. Of these, 401 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before the second scan.

Participants also completed cognitive tests at the time of both scans.

Biobank centers use identical MRI scans and scanning methods, including six types of MRI scans, to image distinct regions of the brain and brain function. Results showed that although some loss of gray matter over time is normal, individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a 0.2% to 2% brain tissue loss in the parahippocampal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula – all of which are largely involved in the sense of smell.

Participants who had contracted COVID-19 also showed a greater reduction in overall brain volume and a decrease in cognitive function.

Most of those with COVID-19 had only mild or moderate symptoms. However, the findings held even after the researchers excluded patients who had been hospitalized.
 

More research needed

“These findings might help explain why some people experience brain symptoms long after the acute infection,” Max Taquet, PhD, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health BRC senior research fellow, University of Oxford, said in a press release.

Dr. Taquet, who was not a part of the study, noted the causes of these brain changes remain to be determined. Questions remain as to “whether they can be prevented or even reverted, as well as whether similar changes are observed in hospitalized patients,” children, younger adults, and minority groups.

“It is possible that these brain changes are not caused by COVID-19 but represent the natural progression of a disease that itself increased the risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Taquet said.

Other experts expressed concern over the findings and emphasized the need for more research.

“I am very concerned by the alarming use of language in the report with terms such as ‘neurodegenerative,’ “ Alan Carson, MD, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said in a press release. “The size and magnitude of brain changes found is very modest and such changes can be caused by a simple change in mental experience,” Dr. Carson said.

“What this study almost certainly shows is the impact, in terms of neural changes, of being disconnected from one’s sense of smell,” he added.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust Collaborative. Full financial conflict information for the study authors is included in the original article. Dr. Taquet has collaborated previously with some of the investigators.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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