MDedge Infectious Disease

Postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (PI-ME/CFS) is a distinct, centrally mediated condition, with evidence of autonomic, immune, and metabolic dysfunction, new "deep phenotyping" data suggested.

The study was initiated in 2016 at the US National Institutes of Health. Its aim was to better elucidate the underlying pathophysiology of ME/CFS, a multisystem disorder characterized by persistent and disabling fatigue, post-exertional malaise, cognitive complaints, and other physical symptoms. A total of 17 carefully selected individuals with PI-ME/CFS onset within the prior 5 years were compared with 21 healthy volunteers on a more extensive set of biologic measurements than has been examined in any prior study of the condition.

Overall, the findings suggested that ME/CFS is “a distinct entity characterized by somatic and cognitive complaints that are centrally mediated,” with fatigue that is “defined by effort preferences and central autonomic dysfunction,” Brian T. Walitt, MD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues wrote in the paper, published on February 21 in Nature Communications.

In addition, “there are distinct sex signatures of immune and metabolic dysregulation which suggest persistent antigenic stimulation.” Physical deconditioning over time, while not the source of the condition, “is an important consequence,” the authors added.

Asked to comment, Hector Bonilla, MD, director of the ME/CFS Clinic and codirector of the Stanford Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic, Atherton, California, pointed out that the sample was small and the study was cross-sectional and therefore likely missed dynamic changes in the patients.

Nonetheless, Dr. Bonilla told this news organization, “they have shown clear objective changes in patients with ME/CFS not seen in the controls. These are present in the microbiome, in the immune system, and in metabolites, especially in spinal fluid, that lead to a neuroinflammatory condition. And these are linked with autonomic dysfunction that can explain many of the symptoms that patients experience ... The symptoms are not manufactured by them.”

Thus far, the only treatments for ME/CFS are symptomatic. Understanding the pathophysiology is essential to identifying disease-modifying therapy, study lead author Avindra Nath, MD, Senior Investigator and Clinical Director of Intramural Research at NINDS, told this news organization.

“The disease is real. But our medical profession is limited in what they can do to diagnose or impact them ... The first thing we need to do is try to understand the pathophysiology. So that’s why the study was put together,” Dr. Nath said.

Postinfectious syndromes including ME/CFS have been given many names, including post-Lyme disease, Gulf War illness, and more recently, long COVID. With ME/CFS, the Epstein-Barr virus has historically been one of the most commonly associated triggers, although several other viral, bacterial, and environmental toxins have been implicated.

“There are a whole host of these things that have very similar symptoms or overlapping symptoms ... It’s quite possible that the underlying pathophysiology overlaps between all these syndromes,” Dr. Nath noted.

Another ME/CFS expert not involved in the study, researcher Michael VanElzakker, PhD, of the Neurotherapeutics Division at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that the possibility of antigen persistence of the infectious pathogen arising from the immune system profiling conducted in the study is noteworthy and merits further study.

“To me, the obvious next step would be techniques like tissue-based assays and T-cell sequencing to try and understand what exactly those antigens are and what their source might be. Importantly, it is probably not the same antigen or pathogen source in all patients, but that’s a question that needs an answer,” Dr. VanElzakker said.

Of note, the 17 study participants had been adjudicated by an expert panel from an initial 484 inquiries and 217 who underwent detailed case reviews. They had to meet at least one of three published ME/CFS criteria and to have moderate to severe clinical symptom severity as determined by several fatigue scores. None met the criteria for psychiatric diagnoses.

Yet, even in the cases that met study criteria, underlying causes emerged in 20% of the participants over time, suggesting diagnostic misattribution. “This misclassification bias has important ramifications on the interpretation of the existing ME/CFS research literature,” the authors wrote.

Dr. VanElzakker noted, “The fact that this research study was probably the most detailed workup many of these patients had ever gotten is a serious indictment of our current profit-based healthcare system’s prioritization of 15-minute doctor’s appointments. It is almost certain that other patients would also benefit from an intensive detailed workup.”
 

Multiple Abnormalities Identified

There were no differences between the PI-ME/CFS and control groups in ventilatory function, muscle oxygenation, mechanical efficiency, resting energy expenditure, basal mitochondrial function of immune cells, muscle fiber composition, or body composition, suggesting the absence of a resting low-energy state, the authors said.

In 40-minute head-up tilt-table testing, there were no differences between the ME/CFS and control groups in frequency or orthostatic hypotension or extensive orthostatic tachycardia. However, a 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiogram showed that the patients with PI-ME/CFS had diminished heart rate variability. They also showed increased heart rate throughout the day, suggesting increased sympathetic activity, and a diminished drop in nighttime heart rate, suggesting decreased parasympathetic activity.

“Considered together, these data suggest that there is an alteration in autonomic tone, implying central nervous system regulatory change,” Dr. Walitt and colleagues wrote.

On the “Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task,” the participants with PI-ME/CFS showed significant differences in “effort preference,” or a tendency to avoid the harder tasks, as well as a slowing of button-pushing over time, compared with the controls, even with easier tasks. This pattern suggests that those with PI-ME/CFS were “pacing to limit exertion and associated feelings of discomfort,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Nath describes this behavior as akin to “if you develop a flu, you feel that you just want to lay down in bed and not hurt yourself. It’s not that you’re not capable of doing [the task], but your body tells you don’t do it. Your body just wants to fight the infection ... these people just never bounce back.”

Compared with the controls, the participants with PI-ME/CFS failed to maintain a moderate grip force even though there was no difference in maximum grip strength or arm muscle mass. This performance difference correlated with decreased activity of the right temporal-parietal junction, a novel observation suggesting that the fatigue in the PI-ME/CFS group “is due to dysfunction of integrative brain regions that drive the motor cortex, the cause of which needs to be further explored,” Dr. Walitt and colleagues wrote.

On cardiopulmonary testing, peak power, peak respiratory rate, peak heart rate, and peak VO₂ were all lower in the PI-ME/CFS group, correlating to a difference of approximately 3.3 metabolic equivalent of task units. The differential cardiorespiratory performance relates to “autonomic function, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyporesponsiveness, and muscular deconditioning from disuse that clinically impacts activities of daily life,” they said.

In the participants with PI-ME/CFS, catechol levels in cerebrospinal fluid correlated with grip strength and effort preference, and several metabolites of the dopamine pathway correlated with several cognitive symptoms.

“This suggests that central nervous system catechol pathways are dysregulated in PI-ME/CFS and may play a role in effort preference and cognitive complaints,” as well as decreased central catecholamine biosynthesis. Similar findings have been seen in patients with long COVID, the authors noted.

There were increased naive B cells and decreased switched memory B cells in blood of participants with PI-ME/CFS. Contrary to prior studies, there was no consistent pattern of autoimmunity across all participants with PI-ME/CFS, and no previously undescribed antibodies were identified.

However, programmed cell death protein 1, a marker of T-cell exhaustion and activation, was elevated in the cerebrospinal fluid of the patients with PI-ME/CFS.

Several sex-based differences were noted, including in immune cell expression in cerebrospinal fluid, peripheral blood mononuclear cell gene expression, and muscle gene expression. Males and females also differed in the cerebrospinal metabolomics that distinguished the participants with PI-ME/CFS from controls.
 

What Do These Findings Suggest About Treatment?

The data point to several treatment implications. For one, the finding of possible immune exhaustion suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be therapeutic by promoting clearance of foreign antigens. Immune dysfunction leads to neurochemical alterations that affect neuronal circuits, which may be another point of intervention, the authors suggested.

On the other hand, “attempting to target downstream mechanisms with exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, or autonomic directed therapies may have limited impact on symptom burden, as it would not address the root cause of PI-ME/CFS,” they noted.

Combination therapy targeting multiple pathways along with a personalized medicine approach should be considered, they said.

“I think the most important thing is not to discount these patients,” Dr. Nath told this news organization. “They have a real disease, and we need to be empathetic towards them. We also need to make sure that they don’t have something underlying that is treatable, and then treat them symptomatically the best that you can. If not, then refer them to ME/CFS studies or clinics where people specialize in these conditions and work with them.”

The study authors and Dr. VanElzakker reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bonilla consults for United Health and Resverlogix.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (PI-ME/CFS) is a distinct, centrally mediated condition, with evidence of autonomic, immune, and metabolic dysfunction, new "deep phenotyping" data suggested.

The study was initiated in 2016 at the US National Institutes of Health. Its aim was to better elucidate the underlying pathophysiology of ME/CFS, a multisystem disorder characterized by persistent and disabling fatigue, post-exertional malaise, cognitive complaints, and other physical symptoms. A total of 17 carefully selected individuals with PI-ME/CFS onset within the prior 5 years were compared with 21 healthy volunteers on a more extensive set of biologic measurements than has been examined in any prior study of the condition.

Overall, the findings suggested that ME/CFS is “a distinct entity characterized by somatic and cognitive complaints that are centrally mediated,” with fatigue that is “defined by effort preferences and central autonomic dysfunction,” Brian T. Walitt, MD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues wrote in the paper, published on February 21 in Nature Communications.

In addition, “there are distinct sex signatures of immune and metabolic dysregulation which suggest persistent antigenic stimulation.” Physical deconditioning over time, while not the source of the condition, “is an important consequence,” the authors added.

Asked to comment, Hector Bonilla, MD, director of the ME/CFS Clinic and codirector of the Stanford Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic, Atherton, California, pointed out that the sample was small and the study was cross-sectional and therefore likely missed dynamic changes in the patients.

Nonetheless, Dr. Bonilla told this news organization, “they have shown clear objective changes in patients with ME/CFS not seen in the controls. These are present in the microbiome, in the immune system, and in metabolites, especially in spinal fluid, that lead to a neuroinflammatory condition. And these are linked with autonomic dysfunction that can explain many of the symptoms that patients experience ... The symptoms are not manufactured by them.”

Thus far, the only treatments for ME/CFS are symptomatic. Understanding the pathophysiology is essential to identifying disease-modifying therapy, study lead author Avindra Nath, MD, Senior Investigator and Clinical Director of Intramural Research at NINDS, told this news organization.

“The disease is real. But our medical profession is limited in what they can do to diagnose or impact them ... The first thing we need to do is try to understand the pathophysiology. So that’s why the study was put together,” Dr. Nath said.

Postinfectious syndromes including ME/CFS have been given many names, including post-Lyme disease, Gulf War illness, and more recently, long COVID. With ME/CFS, the Epstein-Barr virus has historically been one of the most commonly associated triggers, although several other viral, bacterial, and environmental toxins have been implicated.

“There are a whole host of these things that have very similar symptoms or overlapping symptoms ... It’s quite possible that the underlying pathophysiology overlaps between all these syndromes,” Dr. Nath noted.

Another ME/CFS expert not involved in the study, researcher Michael VanElzakker, PhD, of the Neurotherapeutics Division at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that the possibility of antigen persistence of the infectious pathogen arising from the immune system profiling conducted in the study is noteworthy and merits further study.

“To me, the obvious next step would be techniques like tissue-based assays and T-cell sequencing to try and understand what exactly those antigens are and what their source might be. Importantly, it is probably not the same antigen or pathogen source in all patients, but that’s a question that needs an answer,” Dr. VanElzakker said.

Of note, the 17 study participants had been adjudicated by an expert panel from an initial 484 inquiries and 217 who underwent detailed case reviews. They had to meet at least one of three published ME/CFS criteria and to have moderate to severe clinical symptom severity as determined by several fatigue scores. None met the criteria for psychiatric diagnoses.

Yet, even in the cases that met study criteria, underlying causes emerged in 20% of the participants over time, suggesting diagnostic misattribution. “This misclassification bias has important ramifications on the interpretation of the existing ME/CFS research literature,” the authors wrote.

Dr. VanElzakker noted, “The fact that this research study was probably the most detailed workup many of these patients had ever gotten is a serious indictment of our current profit-based healthcare system’s prioritization of 15-minute doctor’s appointments. It is almost certain that other patients would also benefit from an intensive detailed workup.”
 

Multiple Abnormalities Identified

There were no differences between the PI-ME/CFS and control groups in ventilatory function, muscle oxygenation, mechanical efficiency, resting energy expenditure, basal mitochondrial function of immune cells, muscle fiber composition, or body composition, suggesting the absence of a resting low-energy state, the authors said.

In 40-minute head-up tilt-table testing, there were no differences between the ME/CFS and control groups in frequency or orthostatic hypotension or extensive orthostatic tachycardia. However, a 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiogram showed that the patients with PI-ME/CFS had diminished heart rate variability. They also showed increased heart rate throughout the day, suggesting increased sympathetic activity, and a diminished drop in nighttime heart rate, suggesting decreased parasympathetic activity.

“Considered together, these data suggest that there is an alteration in autonomic tone, implying central nervous system regulatory change,” Dr. Walitt and colleagues wrote.

On the “Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task,” the participants with PI-ME/CFS showed significant differences in “effort preference,” or a tendency to avoid the harder tasks, as well as a slowing of button-pushing over time, compared with the controls, even with easier tasks. This pattern suggests that those with PI-ME/CFS were “pacing to limit exertion and associated feelings of discomfort,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Nath describes this behavior as akin to “if you develop a flu, you feel that you just want to lay down in bed and not hurt yourself. It’s not that you’re not capable of doing [the task], but your body tells you don’t do it. Your body just wants to fight the infection ... these people just never bounce back.”

Compared with the controls, the participants with PI-ME/CFS failed to maintain a moderate grip force even though there was no difference in maximum grip strength or arm muscle mass. This performance difference correlated with decreased activity of the right temporal-parietal junction, a novel observation suggesting that the fatigue in the PI-ME/CFS group “is due to dysfunction of integrative brain regions that drive the motor cortex, the cause of which needs to be further explored,” Dr. Walitt and colleagues wrote.

On cardiopulmonary testing, peak power, peak respiratory rate, peak heart rate, and peak VO₂ were all lower in the PI-ME/CFS group, correlating to a difference of approximately 3.3 metabolic equivalent of task units. The differential cardiorespiratory performance relates to “autonomic function, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyporesponsiveness, and muscular deconditioning from disuse that clinically impacts activities of daily life,” they said.

In the participants with PI-ME/CFS, catechol levels in cerebrospinal fluid correlated with grip strength and effort preference, and several metabolites of the dopamine pathway correlated with several cognitive symptoms.

“This suggests that central nervous system catechol pathways are dysregulated in PI-ME/CFS and may play a role in effort preference and cognitive complaints,” as well as decreased central catecholamine biosynthesis. Similar findings have been seen in patients with long COVID, the authors noted.

There were increased naive B cells and decreased switched memory B cells in blood of participants with PI-ME/CFS. Contrary to prior studies, there was no consistent pattern of autoimmunity across all participants with PI-ME/CFS, and no previously undescribed antibodies were identified.

However, programmed cell death protein 1, a marker of T-cell exhaustion and activation, was elevated in the cerebrospinal fluid of the patients with PI-ME/CFS.

Several sex-based differences were noted, including in immune cell expression in cerebrospinal fluid, peripheral blood mononuclear cell gene expression, and muscle gene expression. Males and females also differed in the cerebrospinal metabolomics that distinguished the participants with PI-ME/CFS from controls.
 

What Do These Findings Suggest About Treatment?

The data point to several treatment implications. For one, the finding of possible immune exhaustion suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be therapeutic by promoting clearance of foreign antigens. Immune dysfunction leads to neurochemical alterations that affect neuronal circuits, which may be another point of intervention, the authors suggested.

On the other hand, “attempting to target downstream mechanisms with exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, or autonomic directed therapies may have limited impact on symptom burden, as it would not address the root cause of PI-ME/CFS,” they noted.

Combination therapy targeting multiple pathways along with a personalized medicine approach should be considered, they said.

“I think the most important thing is not to discount these patients,” Dr. Nath told this news organization. “They have a real disease, and we need to be empathetic towards them. We also need to make sure that they don’t have something underlying that is treatable, and then treat them symptomatically the best that you can. If not, then refer them to ME/CFS studies or clinics where people specialize in these conditions and work with them.”

The study authors and Dr. VanElzakker reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bonilla consults for United Health and Resverlogix.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (PI-ME/CFS) is a distinct, centrally mediated condition, with evidence of autonomic, immune, and metabolic dysfunction, new "deep phenotyping" data suggested.

The study was initiated in 2016 at the US National Institutes of Health. Its aim was to better elucidate the underlying pathophysiology of ME/CFS, a multisystem disorder characterized by persistent and disabling fatigue, post-exertional malaise, cognitive complaints, and other physical symptoms. A total of 17 carefully selected individuals with PI-ME/CFS onset within the prior 5 years were compared with 21 healthy volunteers on a more extensive set of biologic measurements than has been examined in any prior study of the condition.

Overall, the findings suggested that ME/CFS is “a distinct entity characterized by somatic and cognitive complaints that are centrally mediated,” with fatigue that is “defined by effort preferences and central autonomic dysfunction,” Brian T. Walitt, MD, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues wrote in the paper, published on February 21 in Nature Communications.

In addition, “there are distinct sex signatures of immune and metabolic dysregulation which suggest persistent antigenic stimulation.” Physical deconditioning over time, while not the source of the condition, “is an important consequence,” the authors added.

Asked to comment, Hector Bonilla, MD, director of the ME/CFS Clinic and codirector of the Stanford Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome Clinic, Atherton, California, pointed out that the sample was small and the study was cross-sectional and therefore likely missed dynamic changes in the patients.

Nonetheless, Dr. Bonilla told this news organization, “they have shown clear objective changes in patients with ME/CFS not seen in the controls. These are present in the microbiome, in the immune system, and in metabolites, especially in spinal fluid, that lead to a neuroinflammatory condition. And these are linked with autonomic dysfunction that can explain many of the symptoms that patients experience ... The symptoms are not manufactured by them.”

Thus far, the only treatments for ME/CFS are symptomatic. Understanding the pathophysiology is essential to identifying disease-modifying therapy, study lead author Avindra Nath, MD, Senior Investigator and Clinical Director of Intramural Research at NINDS, told this news organization.

“The disease is real. But our medical profession is limited in what they can do to diagnose or impact them ... The first thing we need to do is try to understand the pathophysiology. So that’s why the study was put together,” Dr. Nath said.

Postinfectious syndromes including ME/CFS have been given many names, including post-Lyme disease, Gulf War illness, and more recently, long COVID. With ME/CFS, the Epstein-Barr virus has historically been one of the most commonly associated triggers, although several other viral, bacterial, and environmental toxins have been implicated.

“There are a whole host of these things that have very similar symptoms or overlapping symptoms ... It’s quite possible that the underlying pathophysiology overlaps between all these syndromes,” Dr. Nath noted.

Another ME/CFS expert not involved in the study, researcher Michael VanElzakker, PhD, of the Neurotherapeutics Division at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that the possibility of antigen persistence of the infectious pathogen arising from the immune system profiling conducted in the study is noteworthy and merits further study.

“To me, the obvious next step would be techniques like tissue-based assays and T-cell sequencing to try and understand what exactly those antigens are and what their source might be. Importantly, it is probably not the same antigen or pathogen source in all patients, but that’s a question that needs an answer,” Dr. VanElzakker said.

Of note, the 17 study participants had been adjudicated by an expert panel from an initial 484 inquiries and 217 who underwent detailed case reviews. They had to meet at least one of three published ME/CFS criteria and to have moderate to severe clinical symptom severity as determined by several fatigue scores. None met the criteria for psychiatric diagnoses.

Yet, even in the cases that met study criteria, underlying causes emerged in 20% of the participants over time, suggesting diagnostic misattribution. “This misclassification bias has important ramifications on the interpretation of the existing ME/CFS research literature,” the authors wrote.

Dr. VanElzakker noted, “The fact that this research study was probably the most detailed workup many of these patients had ever gotten is a serious indictment of our current profit-based healthcare system’s prioritization of 15-minute doctor’s appointments. It is almost certain that other patients would also benefit from an intensive detailed workup.”
 

Multiple Abnormalities Identified

There were no differences between the PI-ME/CFS and control groups in ventilatory function, muscle oxygenation, mechanical efficiency, resting energy expenditure, basal mitochondrial function of immune cells, muscle fiber composition, or body composition, suggesting the absence of a resting low-energy state, the authors said.

In 40-minute head-up tilt-table testing, there were no differences between the ME/CFS and control groups in frequency or orthostatic hypotension or extensive orthostatic tachycardia. However, a 24-hour ambulatory electrocardiogram showed that the patients with PI-ME/CFS had diminished heart rate variability. They also showed increased heart rate throughout the day, suggesting increased sympathetic activity, and a diminished drop in nighttime heart rate, suggesting decreased parasympathetic activity.

“Considered together, these data suggest that there is an alteration in autonomic tone, implying central nervous system regulatory change,” Dr. Walitt and colleagues wrote.

On the “Effort-Expenditure for Rewards Task,” the participants with PI-ME/CFS showed significant differences in “effort preference,” or a tendency to avoid the harder tasks, as well as a slowing of button-pushing over time, compared with the controls, even with easier tasks. This pattern suggests that those with PI-ME/CFS were “pacing to limit exertion and associated feelings of discomfort,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Nath describes this behavior as akin to “if you develop a flu, you feel that you just want to lay down in bed and not hurt yourself. It’s not that you’re not capable of doing [the task], but your body tells you don’t do it. Your body just wants to fight the infection ... these people just never bounce back.”

Compared with the controls, the participants with PI-ME/CFS failed to maintain a moderate grip force even though there was no difference in maximum grip strength or arm muscle mass. This performance difference correlated with decreased activity of the right temporal-parietal junction, a novel observation suggesting that the fatigue in the PI-ME/CFS group “is due to dysfunction of integrative brain regions that drive the motor cortex, the cause of which needs to be further explored,” Dr. Walitt and colleagues wrote.

On cardiopulmonary testing, peak power, peak respiratory rate, peak heart rate, and peak VO₂ were all lower in the PI-ME/CFS group, correlating to a difference of approximately 3.3 metabolic equivalent of task units. The differential cardiorespiratory performance relates to “autonomic function, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hyporesponsiveness, and muscular deconditioning from disuse that clinically impacts activities of daily life,” they said.

In the participants with PI-ME/CFS, catechol levels in cerebrospinal fluid correlated with grip strength and effort preference, and several metabolites of the dopamine pathway correlated with several cognitive symptoms.

“This suggests that central nervous system catechol pathways are dysregulated in PI-ME/CFS and may play a role in effort preference and cognitive complaints,” as well as decreased central catecholamine biosynthesis. Similar findings have been seen in patients with long COVID, the authors noted.

There were increased naive B cells and decreased switched memory B cells in blood of participants with PI-ME/CFS. Contrary to prior studies, there was no consistent pattern of autoimmunity across all participants with PI-ME/CFS, and no previously undescribed antibodies were identified.

However, programmed cell death protein 1, a marker of T-cell exhaustion and activation, was elevated in the cerebrospinal fluid of the patients with PI-ME/CFS.

Several sex-based differences were noted, including in immune cell expression in cerebrospinal fluid, peripheral blood mononuclear cell gene expression, and muscle gene expression. Males and females also differed in the cerebrospinal metabolomics that distinguished the participants with PI-ME/CFS from controls.
 

What Do These Findings Suggest About Treatment?

The data point to several treatment implications. For one, the finding of possible immune exhaustion suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be therapeutic by promoting clearance of foreign antigens. Immune dysfunction leads to neurochemical alterations that affect neuronal circuits, which may be another point of intervention, the authors suggested.

On the other hand, “attempting to target downstream mechanisms with exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, or autonomic directed therapies may have limited impact on symptom burden, as it would not address the root cause of PI-ME/CFS,” they noted.

Combination therapy targeting multiple pathways along with a personalized medicine approach should be considered, they said.

“I think the most important thing is not to discount these patients,” Dr. Nath told this news organization. “They have a real disease, and we need to be empathetic towards them. We also need to make sure that they don’t have something underlying that is treatable, and then treat them symptomatically the best that you can. If not, then refer them to ME/CFS studies or clinics where people specialize in these conditions and work with them.”

The study authors and Dr. VanElzakker reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bonilla consults for United Health and Resverlogix.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Skin conditions burden many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the authors of a single-center study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Little is known about the prevalence of IBD-associated skin lesions and their association with IBD severity in children ages 18 and younger.Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with  (CD) or ulcerative  (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.
• Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common noninfectious dermatologic condition among the 425 children and adolescents was  (30.8%), followed by eczema (15.8%) and perianal skin tags (14.6%).
• Angular cheilitis was more common among those with CD than those with UC (7.2% vs 2%, respectively; P = .024) as was keratosis pilaris (6.9% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and perianal skin complications such as skin tags (20.3% vs 4%), fistulas (13.4% vs 2.7%), and abscesses (13.4% vs 2%; P < .001 for all associations).
• Fungal skin infections were more frequently diagnosed in children with UC than those with CD (15.4% vs 8%; P = .017).
• The researchers observed that the severity of IBD correlated with a higher prevalence of perianal fistula (P = .003), perianal region abscess (P = .041), psoriasis (P < .001), and pyoderma gangrenosum (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

“Early identification of common dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents with IBD and recognizing their characteristic associations may alter management and improve skin-related outcomes in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Megha M. Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design and the fact that database studies are subject to extraction error. There was no age- and sex-matched cohort to determine whether the prevalence of cutaneous infections, acne, eczema, and other inflammatory disorders was truly increased in IBD.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Skin conditions burden many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the authors of a single-center study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Little is known about the prevalence of IBD-associated skin lesions and their association with IBD severity in children ages 18 and younger.Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with  (CD) or ulcerative  (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.
• Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common noninfectious dermatologic condition among the 425 children and adolescents was  (30.8%), followed by eczema (15.8%) and perianal skin tags (14.6%).
• Angular cheilitis was more common among those with CD than those with UC (7.2% vs 2%, respectively; P = .024) as was keratosis pilaris (6.9% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and perianal skin complications such as skin tags (20.3% vs 4%), fistulas (13.4% vs 2.7%), and abscesses (13.4% vs 2%; P < .001 for all associations).
• Fungal skin infections were more frequently diagnosed in children with UC than those with CD (15.4% vs 8%; P = .017).
• The researchers observed that the severity of IBD correlated with a higher prevalence of perianal fistula (P = .003), perianal region abscess (P = .041), psoriasis (P < .001), and pyoderma gangrenosum (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

“Early identification of common dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents with IBD and recognizing their characteristic associations may alter management and improve skin-related outcomes in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Megha M. Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design and the fact that database studies are subject to extraction error. There was no age- and sex-matched cohort to determine whether the prevalence of cutaneous infections, acne, eczema, and other inflammatory disorders was truly increased in IBD.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Skin conditions burden many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the authors of a single-center study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Little is known about the prevalence of IBD-associated skin lesions and their association with IBD severity in children ages 18 and younger.Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with  (CD) or ulcerative  (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.
• Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common noninfectious dermatologic condition among the 425 children and adolescents was  (30.8%), followed by eczema (15.8%) and perianal skin tags (14.6%).
• Angular cheilitis was more common among those with CD than those with UC (7.2% vs 2%, respectively; P = .024) as was keratosis pilaris (6.9% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and perianal skin complications such as skin tags (20.3% vs 4%), fistulas (13.4% vs 2.7%), and abscesses (13.4% vs 2%; P < .001 for all associations).
• Fungal skin infections were more frequently diagnosed in children with UC than those with CD (15.4% vs 8%; P = .017).
• The researchers observed that the severity of IBD correlated with a higher prevalence of perianal fistula (P = .003), perianal region abscess (P = .041), psoriasis (P < .001), and pyoderma gangrenosum (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

“Early identification of common dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents with IBD and recognizing their characteristic associations may alter management and improve skin-related outcomes in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Megha M. Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design and the fact that database studies are subject to extraction error. There was no age- and sex-matched cohort to determine whether the prevalence of cutaneous infections, acne, eczema, and other inflammatory disorders was truly increased in IBD.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cefepime-taniborbactam was 22% more effective than meropenem, which is a current treatment for complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and acute pyelonephritis, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cefepime-taniborbactam is an antibiotic currently being explored as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• The phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial included participants from 15 countries, including a safety group of 657 patients who were studied for adverse events and 436 in the micro intention-to-treat group who were studied for drug effectiveness.
• Each drug’s efficacy was measured as a combination of reduced bacteria levels and a resolution of symptoms and signs of infection.
• Patients in the study were over age 18; had a diagnosis of either complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis; and had pyuria, at least one systemic sign, and at least one local sign or symptom. People were excluded if they had already received antibacterial drug therapy for more than 24 hours before randomization or had an infection with a meropenem-resistant pathogen.

TAKEAWAY:

• At days 19-23, 70.6% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group showed a successful reduction in bacteria and symptoms compared with 58.0% in the meropenem group.
• Cefepime-taniborbactam was more effective than meropenem during follow-up, with 89.1% efficacy less than 24 hours after the last dose, compared to meropenem’s 86%. Cefepime-taniborbactam continued to have 63.8% efficacy up to 35 days after starting treatment, while meropenem was 51.7% during that timeframe.
• In the cefepime-taniborbactam group, 35.5% of patients experienced adverse effects that were mild to moderate, including headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea, compared to 29% in the meropenem group.
• Overall, 3% of participants discontinued cefepime-taniborbactam and 1.8% discontinued meropenem, but reasons were heterogeneous.

IN PRACTICE:

“Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paul McGovern, MD, infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, was the corresponding author of the study.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported no limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, which received funding from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership, and Everest Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lingering postinfectious cough has been a concern across Canada this winter. Patients with this symptom (defined as a subacute cough, with symptoms lasting between 3 and 8 weeks after the infection) have many questions when they come to the clinic. But there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment for postinfectious cough, according to an overview published on February 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

“It’s something a lot of patients are worried about: That lingering cough after a common cold or flu,” lead author Kevin Liang, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. He added that some studies show that as much as a quarter of adult patients have this complaint.

Dr. Liang and his colleagues emphasized that the diagnosis of postinfectious cough is one of exclusion. It relies on the absence of concerning physical examination findings and other “subacute cough mimics” such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

“Pertussis should be considered in patients with a paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, and inspiratory whoop,” they added. Coughs that persist beyond 8 weeks warrant further workup such as a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or COPD. Coughs accompanied by hemoptysis, systemic symptoms, dysphagia, excessive dyspnea, or hoarseness also warrant further workup, they added. And patients with a history of smoking or recurrent pneumonia should be followed more closely.

In the absence of red flags, Dr. Liang and coauthors advised that there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment, “which is associated with harms,” such as medication adverse effects, cost, strain on the medical supply chain, and the fact that pressurized metered-dose inhalers emit powerful greenhouse gases. “A lot of patients come in looking for solutions, but really, all the evidence says the over-the-counter cough syrup just doesn’t work. Or I see clinicians prescribing inhalers or different medication that can cost hundreds of dollars, and their efficacy, at least from the literature, shows that there’s really no improvement. Time and patience are the two keys to solving this,” Dr. Liang told this news organization.

Moreover, there is a distinct absence of guidelines on this topic. The College of Family Physicians of Canada’s recent literature review cited limited data supporting a trial of inhaled corticosteroids, a bronchodilator such as ipratropium-salbutamol, or an intranasal steroid if postnasal drip is suspected. However, “there’s a high risk of bias in the study they cite from using the short-acting bronchodilators, and what it ultimately says is that in most cases, this is self-resolving by around the 20-day mark,” said Dr. Liang. “Our advice is just to err on the side of caution and just provide that information piece to the patient.”
 

‘Significant Nuance’

Imran Satia, MD, assistant professor of respirology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, agreed that “most people who get a viral or bacterial upper or lower respiratory tract infection will get better with time, and there is very little evidence that giving steroids, antibiotics, or cough suppressants is better than waiting it out.” There is “significant nuance” in how to manage this situation, however.

“In some patients with underlying lung disease like asthma or COPD, increasing the frequency of regular inhaled steroids, bronchodilators, oral steroids, antibiotics, and chest imaging with breathing tests may be clinically warranted, and many physicians will do this,” he told this news organization. “In some patients with refractory chronic cough, there is no underlying identifiable disease, despite completing the necessary investigations. Or coughing persists despite trials of treatment for lung diseases, nasal diseases, and stomach reflux disease. This is commonly described as cough hypersensitivity syndrome, for which therapies targeting the neuronal pathways that control coughing are needed.”

Physicians should occasionally consider trying a temporary course of a short-acting bronchodilator inhaler, said Nicholas Vozoris, MD, assistant professor and clinician investigator in respirology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. “I think that would be a reasonable first step in a case of really bad postinfectious cough,” he told this news organization. “But in general, drug treatments are not indicated.”
 

Environmental Concerns

Yet some things should raise clinicians’ suspicion of more complex issues.

“A pattern of recurrent colds or bronchitis with protracted coughing afterward raises strong suspicion for asthma, which can present as repeated, prolonged respiratory exacerbations,” he said. “Unless asthma is treated with appropriate inhaler therapy on a regular basis, it will unlikely come under control.”

Dr. Vozoris added that the environmental concerns over the use of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are minimal compared with the other sources of pollution and the risks for undertreatment. “The authors are overplaying the environmental impact of MDI, in my opinion,” he said. “Physicians already have to deal with the challenging issue of suboptimal patient adherence to inhalers, and I fear that such comments may further drive that up. Furthermore, there is also an environmental footprint with not using inhalers, as patients can then experience suboptimally controlled lung disease as a result — and then present to the ER and get admitted to hospital for exacerbations of disease, where more resources and medications are used up.”

“In addition, in patients who are immunocompromised, protracted coughing after what was thought to be a cold may be associated with an “atypical” respiratory infection, such as tuberculosis, that will require special medical treatment,” Dr. Vozoris concluded.

No funding for the review of postinfectious cough was reported. Dr. Liang and Dr. Vozoris disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Satia reported receiving funding from the ERS Respire 3 Fellowship Award, BMA James Trust Award, North-West Lung Centre Charity (Manchester), NIHR CRF Manchester, Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK. Dr. Satia also has received consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; as well as speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck MSD, Sanofi-Regeneron. Satia has served on the following task force committees: Chronic Cough (ERS), Asthma Diagnosis and Management (ERS), NEUROCOUGH (ERS CRC), and the CTS Chronic Cough working group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lingering postinfectious cough has been a concern across Canada this winter. Patients with this symptom (defined as a subacute cough, with symptoms lasting between 3 and 8 weeks after the infection) have many questions when they come to the clinic. But there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment for postinfectious cough, according to an overview published on February 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

“It’s something a lot of patients are worried about: That lingering cough after a common cold or flu,” lead author Kevin Liang, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. He added that some studies show that as much as a quarter of adult patients have this complaint.

Dr. Liang and his colleagues emphasized that the diagnosis of postinfectious cough is one of exclusion. It relies on the absence of concerning physical examination findings and other “subacute cough mimics” such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

“Pertussis should be considered in patients with a paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, and inspiratory whoop,” they added. Coughs that persist beyond 8 weeks warrant further workup such as a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or COPD. Coughs accompanied by hemoptysis, systemic symptoms, dysphagia, excessive dyspnea, or hoarseness also warrant further workup, they added. And patients with a history of smoking or recurrent pneumonia should be followed more closely.

In the absence of red flags, Dr. Liang and coauthors advised that there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment, “which is associated with harms,” such as medication adverse effects, cost, strain on the medical supply chain, and the fact that pressurized metered-dose inhalers emit powerful greenhouse gases. “A lot of patients come in looking for solutions, but really, all the evidence says the over-the-counter cough syrup just doesn’t work. Or I see clinicians prescribing inhalers or different medication that can cost hundreds of dollars, and their efficacy, at least from the literature, shows that there’s really no improvement. Time and patience are the two keys to solving this,” Dr. Liang told this news organization.

Moreover, there is a distinct absence of guidelines on this topic. The College of Family Physicians of Canada’s recent literature review cited limited data supporting a trial of inhaled corticosteroids, a bronchodilator such as ipratropium-salbutamol, or an intranasal steroid if postnasal drip is suspected. However, “there’s a high risk of bias in the study they cite from using the short-acting bronchodilators, and what it ultimately says is that in most cases, this is self-resolving by around the 20-day mark,” said Dr. Liang. “Our advice is just to err on the side of caution and just provide that information piece to the patient.”
 

‘Significant Nuance’

Imran Satia, MD, assistant professor of respirology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, agreed that “most people who get a viral or bacterial upper or lower respiratory tract infection will get better with time, and there is very little evidence that giving steroids, antibiotics, or cough suppressants is better than waiting it out.” There is “significant nuance” in how to manage this situation, however.

“In some patients with underlying lung disease like asthma or COPD, increasing the frequency of regular inhaled steroids, bronchodilators, oral steroids, antibiotics, and chest imaging with breathing tests may be clinically warranted, and many physicians will do this,” he told this news organization. “In some patients with refractory chronic cough, there is no underlying identifiable disease, despite completing the necessary investigations. Or coughing persists despite trials of treatment for lung diseases, nasal diseases, and stomach reflux disease. This is commonly described as cough hypersensitivity syndrome, for which therapies targeting the neuronal pathways that control coughing are needed.”

Physicians should occasionally consider trying a temporary course of a short-acting bronchodilator inhaler, said Nicholas Vozoris, MD, assistant professor and clinician investigator in respirology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. “I think that would be a reasonable first step in a case of really bad postinfectious cough,” he told this news organization. “But in general, drug treatments are not indicated.”
 

Environmental Concerns

Yet some things should raise clinicians’ suspicion of more complex issues.

“A pattern of recurrent colds or bronchitis with protracted coughing afterward raises strong suspicion for asthma, which can present as repeated, prolonged respiratory exacerbations,” he said. “Unless asthma is treated with appropriate inhaler therapy on a regular basis, it will unlikely come under control.”

Dr. Vozoris added that the environmental concerns over the use of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are minimal compared with the other sources of pollution and the risks for undertreatment. “The authors are overplaying the environmental impact of MDI, in my opinion,” he said. “Physicians already have to deal with the challenging issue of suboptimal patient adherence to inhalers, and I fear that such comments may further drive that up. Furthermore, there is also an environmental footprint with not using inhalers, as patients can then experience suboptimally controlled lung disease as a result — and then present to the ER and get admitted to hospital for exacerbations of disease, where more resources and medications are used up.”

“In addition, in patients who are immunocompromised, protracted coughing after what was thought to be a cold may be associated with an “atypical” respiratory infection, such as tuberculosis, that will require special medical treatment,” Dr. Vozoris concluded.

No funding for the review of postinfectious cough was reported. Dr. Liang and Dr. Vozoris disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Satia reported receiving funding from the ERS Respire 3 Fellowship Award, BMA James Trust Award, North-West Lung Centre Charity (Manchester), NIHR CRF Manchester, Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK. Dr. Satia also has received consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; as well as speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck MSD, Sanofi-Regeneron. Satia has served on the following task force committees: Chronic Cough (ERS), Asthma Diagnosis and Management (ERS), NEUROCOUGH (ERS CRC), and the CTS Chronic Cough working group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lingering postinfectious cough has been a concern across Canada this winter. Patients with this symptom (defined as a subacute cough, with symptoms lasting between 3 and 8 weeks after the infection) have many questions when they come to the clinic. But there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment for postinfectious cough, according to an overview published on February 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

“It’s something a lot of patients are worried about: That lingering cough after a common cold or flu,” lead author Kevin Liang, MD, of the Department of Family Medicine at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. He added that some studies show that as much as a quarter of adult patients have this complaint.

Dr. Liang and his colleagues emphasized that the diagnosis of postinfectious cough is one of exclusion. It relies on the absence of concerning physical examination findings and other “subacute cough mimics” such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gastroesophageal reflux disease, or use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

“Pertussis should be considered in patients with a paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, and inspiratory whoop,” they added. Coughs that persist beyond 8 weeks warrant further workup such as a pulmonary function test to rule out asthma or COPD. Coughs accompanied by hemoptysis, systemic symptoms, dysphagia, excessive dyspnea, or hoarseness also warrant further workup, they added. And patients with a history of smoking or recurrent pneumonia should be followed more closely.

In the absence of red flags, Dr. Liang and coauthors advised that there is no evidence supporting pharmacologic treatment, “which is associated with harms,” such as medication adverse effects, cost, strain on the medical supply chain, and the fact that pressurized metered-dose inhalers emit powerful greenhouse gases. “A lot of patients come in looking for solutions, but really, all the evidence says the over-the-counter cough syrup just doesn’t work. Or I see clinicians prescribing inhalers or different medication that can cost hundreds of dollars, and their efficacy, at least from the literature, shows that there’s really no improvement. Time and patience are the two keys to solving this,” Dr. Liang told this news organization.

Moreover, there is a distinct absence of guidelines on this topic. The College of Family Physicians of Canada’s recent literature review cited limited data supporting a trial of inhaled corticosteroids, a bronchodilator such as ipratropium-salbutamol, or an intranasal steroid if postnasal drip is suspected. However, “there’s a high risk of bias in the study they cite from using the short-acting bronchodilators, and what it ultimately says is that in most cases, this is self-resolving by around the 20-day mark,” said Dr. Liang. “Our advice is just to err on the side of caution and just provide that information piece to the patient.”
 

‘Significant Nuance’

Imran Satia, MD, assistant professor of respirology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, agreed that “most people who get a viral or bacterial upper or lower respiratory tract infection will get better with time, and there is very little evidence that giving steroids, antibiotics, or cough suppressants is better than waiting it out.” There is “significant nuance” in how to manage this situation, however.

“In some patients with underlying lung disease like asthma or COPD, increasing the frequency of regular inhaled steroids, bronchodilators, oral steroids, antibiotics, and chest imaging with breathing tests may be clinically warranted, and many physicians will do this,” he told this news organization. “In some patients with refractory chronic cough, there is no underlying identifiable disease, despite completing the necessary investigations. Or coughing persists despite trials of treatment for lung diseases, nasal diseases, and stomach reflux disease. This is commonly described as cough hypersensitivity syndrome, for which therapies targeting the neuronal pathways that control coughing are needed.”

Physicians should occasionally consider trying a temporary course of a short-acting bronchodilator inhaler, said Nicholas Vozoris, MD, assistant professor and clinician investigator in respirology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. “I think that would be a reasonable first step in a case of really bad postinfectious cough,” he told this news organization. “But in general, drug treatments are not indicated.”
 

Environmental Concerns

Yet some things should raise clinicians’ suspicion of more complex issues.

“A pattern of recurrent colds or bronchitis with protracted coughing afterward raises strong suspicion for asthma, which can present as repeated, prolonged respiratory exacerbations,” he said. “Unless asthma is treated with appropriate inhaler therapy on a regular basis, it will unlikely come under control.”

Dr. Vozoris added that the environmental concerns over the use of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are minimal compared with the other sources of pollution and the risks for undertreatment. “The authors are overplaying the environmental impact of MDI, in my opinion,” he said. “Physicians already have to deal with the challenging issue of suboptimal patient adherence to inhalers, and I fear that such comments may further drive that up. Furthermore, there is also an environmental footprint with not using inhalers, as patients can then experience suboptimally controlled lung disease as a result — and then present to the ER and get admitted to hospital for exacerbations of disease, where more resources and medications are used up.”

“In addition, in patients who are immunocompromised, protracted coughing after what was thought to be a cold may be associated with an “atypical” respiratory infection, such as tuberculosis, that will require special medical treatment,” Dr. Vozoris concluded.

No funding for the review of postinfectious cough was reported. Dr. Liang and Dr. Vozoris disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Satia reported receiving funding from the ERS Respire 3 Fellowship Award, BMA James Trust Award, North-West Lung Centre Charity (Manchester), NIHR CRF Manchester, Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK. Dr. Satia also has received consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; as well as speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck MSD, Sanofi-Regeneron. Satia has served on the following task force committees: Chronic Cough (ERS), Asthma Diagnosis and Management (ERS), NEUROCOUGH (ERS CRC), and the CTS Chronic Cough working group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maria Maio wasn’t the only person in her workplace battling COVID-19 in early December 2023. But while everyone else she knows got better, she got long COVID.

A celebrity makeup artist, the 55-year-old New Yorker had been boosted and vaccinated at every opportunity since vaccines were approved at the end of 2020, until the fall of 2023, when she skipped the shot.

“I really started subscribing to the mindset that you have an immune system and your immune system is supposed to work for you,” she said. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done.”

Maio was not the only person to skip the latest booster: A recent study reported that while nearly 80% of adults in the United States said they’d received their first series of vaccines, barely 20% were up to date on boosters. Nor was Maio alone in getting long COVID 4 years after the start of the deadliest pandemic in a century.

It’s tempting, this far out from the shutdowns of 2020, to think the virus is over, that we’re immune, and nobody’s going to get sick anymore. But while fewer people are getting COVID, it is still very much a part of our lives. And as Maio and others are learning the hard way, long COVID is, too — and it can be deadly.

For those who have recently contracted long COVID, it can feel as if the whole world has moved on from the pandemic, and they are being left behind.
 

Too Easy to Let Our Guard Down

“It’s really difficult to prevent exposure to COVID no matter how careful you are and no matter how many times you are vaccinated,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunology professor at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and pioneer in long COVID research. Iwasaki was quick to point out that “we should never blame anybody for getting long COVID because there is no bulletproof way of preventing long COVID from happening” — although research shows you can increase your protection through vaccination, masking, and increasing ventilation indoors.

Also, just because you didn’t get long COVID after catching the virus once, doesn’t mean you’ll dodge the bullet if you get sick again, as Maio has now learned twice. She had long COVID in 2022 after her second bout with the virus, with breathing problems and brain fog that lasted for several months.

Subsequent long COVID experiences won’t necessarily mimic previous ones. Although Maio developed brain fog again, this time she didn’t have the breathing problems that plagued her in 2022. Instead, she had headaches so excruciating she thought she was dying of a brain aneurysm.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study released in May identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, including symptom subgroups that occurred in 80% of the nearly 10,000 study participants. But the symptoms that patients with long COVID are experiencing now are slightly different from earlier in the pandemic or at least that’s what doctors are finding at the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Michael Risbano, MD, the clinic’s codirector, said fewer patients have pulmonary or lung damage now than in the past, but a steady stream report problems with brain fog, forgetfulness, exercise intolerance (shortness of breath and fatigue with exercise and difficulty performing any kind of exertional activity), and post-exertional malaise (feeling wiped out or fatigued for hours or even days after physical or mental activity).
 

Long COVID Treatments Showing Improvement — Slowly

“There still isn’t a great way to treat any of this,” said Risbano, whose clinic is involved with the National Institute of Health’s RECOVER-VITAL trial, which is evaluating potential treatments including Paxlovid and exercise to treat autonomic dysfunction with similarities to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and POTS, exercise intolerance, and neurocognitive effects such as brain fog.

Risbano and colleagues have found that physical therapy and exercise training have helped patients with exercise intolerance and neurocognitive problems. “It’s not a quick thing where they go through one visit and are better the next day,” he stressed. “It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of effort, a little bit of homework — there are no silver bullets, no magic medications.”

A quick fix was definitely not in the cards for Dean Jones, PhD, who could barely move when he developed long COVID in May 2023. A 74-year-old biochemist and professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, he’d recovered fully the first time he had COVID, in August 2022, but had a completely different experience the second time. He had been vaccinated four times when he began experiencing chronic fatigue, intense exertion-induced migraines, severe airway congestion, brain fog, and shortness of breath. The symptoms began after Memorial Day and worsened over the next month.

His resting heart rate began racing even when he was sleeping, jumping from 53 to 70 beats per minute. “It was almost as though the virus had hit my heart rather than the lungs alone,” he said.

Doctors prescribed multiple inhalers and glucocorticoids to calm Jones’s immune system. The worst symptoms began to abate after a few weeks. The bad ones continued for fully 2 months, severely limiting Jones’s activity. Although he no longer slept all day, just walking from one room to another was exhausting. A dedicated scientist who typically worked 10-15 hours a day before getting sick, he was lucky to focus on work-related tasks for a fraction of that time.

Although the migraines went away early on, the headaches remained until well into the fall. Jones’s energy level gradually returned, and by Christmas, he was beginning to feel as healthy as he had before getting COVID in May.

Still, he’s not complaining that it took so long to get better. “At 74, there’s a lot of colleagues who have already passed away,” he said. “I respect the realities of my age. There are so many people who died from COVID that I’m thankful I had those vaccines. I’m thankful that I pulled through it and was able to rebound.”
 

Time Helps Healing — But Prompt Care Still Needed

Recovery is the case for most patients with long COVID, said Lisa Sanders, MD, medical director of the Yale New Haven Health Systems Long COVID Consultation Clinic, which opened in March 2023. Although the clinic has a small segment of patients who have had the condition since 2020, “people who recover, who are most people, move on,” she said. “Even the patients who sometimes have to wait a month or so to see me, some of them say, ‘I’m already starting to get better. I wasn’t sure I should come.’”

Maio, too, is recovering but only after multiple visits to the emergency room and a neurologist in late December and early January. The third emergency room trip was prompted after a brief episode in which she lost the feeling in her legs, which began convulsing. A CAT scan showed severely constricted blood vessels in her brain, leading the medical team to speculate she might have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which can trigger the thunderclap headaches that had been causing her such misery.

After her third such headache prompted a fourth emergency room visit, further tests confirmed RCVS, which doctors said was related to inflammation caused by COVID. Maio was then admitted to the hospital, where she spent 4 days starting on a regimen of blood pressure medication, magnesium for the headaches, and oxycodone for pain management.

The TV show Maio works on went back into production after the holidays. She went back at the end of January. She’s still having headaches, though they’re less intense, and she’s still taking medication. She was scheduled for another test to look at her blood vessels in February.

Maio has yet to forgive herself for skipping the last booster, even though there’s no guarantee it would have prevented her from getting sick. Her message for others: it’s better to be safe than to be as sorry as she is.

“I’ll never, ever be persuaded by people who don’t believe in vaccines because I believe in science, and I believe in vaccines — that’s why people don’t die at the age of 30 anymore,” she said. “I really think that people need to know about this and what to expect. Because it is horrendous. It is very painful. I would never want anyone to go through this. Ever.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maria Maio wasn’t the only person in her workplace battling COVID-19 in early December 2023. But while everyone else she knows got better, she got long COVID.

A celebrity makeup artist, the 55-year-old New Yorker had been boosted and vaccinated at every opportunity since vaccines were approved at the end of 2020, until the fall of 2023, when she skipped the shot.

“I really started subscribing to the mindset that you have an immune system and your immune system is supposed to work for you,” she said. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done.”

Maio was not the only person to skip the latest booster: A recent study reported that while nearly 80% of adults in the United States said they’d received their first series of vaccines, barely 20% were up to date on boosters. Nor was Maio alone in getting long COVID 4 years after the start of the deadliest pandemic in a century.

It’s tempting, this far out from the shutdowns of 2020, to think the virus is over, that we’re immune, and nobody’s going to get sick anymore. But while fewer people are getting COVID, it is still very much a part of our lives. And as Maio and others are learning the hard way, long COVID is, too — and it can be deadly.

For those who have recently contracted long COVID, it can feel as if the whole world has moved on from the pandemic, and they are being left behind.
 

Too Easy to Let Our Guard Down

“It’s really difficult to prevent exposure to COVID no matter how careful you are and no matter how many times you are vaccinated,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunology professor at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and pioneer in long COVID research. Iwasaki was quick to point out that “we should never blame anybody for getting long COVID because there is no bulletproof way of preventing long COVID from happening” — although research shows you can increase your protection through vaccination, masking, and increasing ventilation indoors.

Also, just because you didn’t get long COVID after catching the virus once, doesn’t mean you’ll dodge the bullet if you get sick again, as Maio has now learned twice. She had long COVID in 2022 after her second bout with the virus, with breathing problems and brain fog that lasted for several months.

Subsequent long COVID experiences won’t necessarily mimic previous ones. Although Maio developed brain fog again, this time she didn’t have the breathing problems that plagued her in 2022. Instead, she had headaches so excruciating she thought she was dying of a brain aneurysm.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study released in May identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, including symptom subgroups that occurred in 80% of the nearly 10,000 study participants. But the symptoms that patients with long COVID are experiencing now are slightly different from earlier in the pandemic or at least that’s what doctors are finding at the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Michael Risbano, MD, the clinic’s codirector, said fewer patients have pulmonary or lung damage now than in the past, but a steady stream report problems with brain fog, forgetfulness, exercise intolerance (shortness of breath and fatigue with exercise and difficulty performing any kind of exertional activity), and post-exertional malaise (feeling wiped out or fatigued for hours or even days after physical or mental activity).
 

Long COVID Treatments Showing Improvement — Slowly

“There still isn’t a great way to treat any of this,” said Risbano, whose clinic is involved with the National Institute of Health’s RECOVER-VITAL trial, which is evaluating potential treatments including Paxlovid and exercise to treat autonomic dysfunction with similarities to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and POTS, exercise intolerance, and neurocognitive effects such as brain fog.

Risbano and colleagues have found that physical therapy and exercise training have helped patients with exercise intolerance and neurocognitive problems. “It’s not a quick thing where they go through one visit and are better the next day,” he stressed. “It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of effort, a little bit of homework — there are no silver bullets, no magic medications.”

A quick fix was definitely not in the cards for Dean Jones, PhD, who could barely move when he developed long COVID in May 2023. A 74-year-old biochemist and professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, he’d recovered fully the first time he had COVID, in August 2022, but had a completely different experience the second time. He had been vaccinated four times when he began experiencing chronic fatigue, intense exertion-induced migraines, severe airway congestion, brain fog, and shortness of breath. The symptoms began after Memorial Day and worsened over the next month.

His resting heart rate began racing even when he was sleeping, jumping from 53 to 70 beats per minute. “It was almost as though the virus had hit my heart rather than the lungs alone,” he said.

Doctors prescribed multiple inhalers and glucocorticoids to calm Jones’s immune system. The worst symptoms began to abate after a few weeks. The bad ones continued for fully 2 months, severely limiting Jones’s activity. Although he no longer slept all day, just walking from one room to another was exhausting. A dedicated scientist who typically worked 10-15 hours a day before getting sick, he was lucky to focus on work-related tasks for a fraction of that time.

Although the migraines went away early on, the headaches remained until well into the fall. Jones’s energy level gradually returned, and by Christmas, he was beginning to feel as healthy as he had before getting COVID in May.

Still, he’s not complaining that it took so long to get better. “At 74, there’s a lot of colleagues who have already passed away,” he said. “I respect the realities of my age. There are so many people who died from COVID that I’m thankful I had those vaccines. I’m thankful that I pulled through it and was able to rebound.”
 

Time Helps Healing — But Prompt Care Still Needed

Recovery is the case for most patients with long COVID, said Lisa Sanders, MD, medical director of the Yale New Haven Health Systems Long COVID Consultation Clinic, which opened in March 2023. Although the clinic has a small segment of patients who have had the condition since 2020, “people who recover, who are most people, move on,” she said. “Even the patients who sometimes have to wait a month or so to see me, some of them say, ‘I’m already starting to get better. I wasn’t sure I should come.’”

Maio, too, is recovering but only after multiple visits to the emergency room and a neurologist in late December and early January. The third emergency room trip was prompted after a brief episode in which she lost the feeling in her legs, which began convulsing. A CAT scan showed severely constricted blood vessels in her brain, leading the medical team to speculate she might have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which can trigger the thunderclap headaches that had been causing her such misery.

After her third such headache prompted a fourth emergency room visit, further tests confirmed RCVS, which doctors said was related to inflammation caused by COVID. Maio was then admitted to the hospital, where she spent 4 days starting on a regimen of blood pressure medication, magnesium for the headaches, and oxycodone for pain management.

The TV show Maio works on went back into production after the holidays. She went back at the end of January. She’s still having headaches, though they’re less intense, and she’s still taking medication. She was scheduled for another test to look at her blood vessels in February.

Maio has yet to forgive herself for skipping the last booster, even though there’s no guarantee it would have prevented her from getting sick. Her message for others: it’s better to be safe than to be as sorry as she is.

“I’ll never, ever be persuaded by people who don’t believe in vaccines because I believe in science, and I believe in vaccines — that’s why people don’t die at the age of 30 anymore,” she said. “I really think that people need to know about this and what to expect. Because it is horrendous. It is very painful. I would never want anyone to go through this. Ever.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maria Maio wasn’t the only person in her workplace battling COVID-19 in early December 2023. But while everyone else she knows got better, she got long COVID.

A celebrity makeup artist, the 55-year-old New Yorker had been boosted and vaccinated at every opportunity since vaccines were approved at the end of 2020, until the fall of 2023, when she skipped the shot.

“I really started subscribing to the mindset that you have an immune system and your immune system is supposed to work for you,” she said. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done.”

Maio was not the only person to skip the latest booster: A recent study reported that while nearly 80% of adults in the United States said they’d received their first series of vaccines, barely 20% were up to date on boosters. Nor was Maio alone in getting long COVID 4 years after the start of the deadliest pandemic in a century.

It’s tempting, this far out from the shutdowns of 2020, to think the virus is over, that we’re immune, and nobody’s going to get sick anymore. But while fewer people are getting COVID, it is still very much a part of our lives. And as Maio and others are learning the hard way, long COVID is, too — and it can be deadly.

For those who have recently contracted long COVID, it can feel as if the whole world has moved on from the pandemic, and they are being left behind.
 

Too Easy to Let Our Guard Down

“It’s really difficult to prevent exposure to COVID no matter how careful you are and no matter how many times you are vaccinated,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunology professor at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and pioneer in long COVID research. Iwasaki was quick to point out that “we should never blame anybody for getting long COVID because there is no bulletproof way of preventing long COVID from happening” — although research shows you can increase your protection through vaccination, masking, and increasing ventilation indoors.

Also, just because you didn’t get long COVID after catching the virus once, doesn’t mean you’ll dodge the bullet if you get sick again, as Maio has now learned twice. She had long COVID in 2022 after her second bout with the virus, with breathing problems and brain fog that lasted for several months.

Subsequent long COVID experiences won’t necessarily mimic previous ones. Although Maio developed brain fog again, this time she didn’t have the breathing problems that plagued her in 2022. Instead, she had headaches so excruciating she thought she was dying of a brain aneurysm.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study released in May identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, including symptom subgroups that occurred in 80% of the nearly 10,000 study participants. But the symptoms that patients with long COVID are experiencing now are slightly different from earlier in the pandemic or at least that’s what doctors are finding at the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Michael Risbano, MD, the clinic’s codirector, said fewer patients have pulmonary or lung damage now than in the past, but a steady stream report problems with brain fog, forgetfulness, exercise intolerance (shortness of breath and fatigue with exercise and difficulty performing any kind of exertional activity), and post-exertional malaise (feeling wiped out or fatigued for hours or even days after physical or mental activity).
 

Long COVID Treatments Showing Improvement — Slowly

“There still isn’t a great way to treat any of this,” said Risbano, whose clinic is involved with the National Institute of Health’s RECOVER-VITAL trial, which is evaluating potential treatments including Paxlovid and exercise to treat autonomic dysfunction with similarities to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and POTS, exercise intolerance, and neurocognitive effects such as brain fog.

Risbano and colleagues have found that physical therapy and exercise training have helped patients with exercise intolerance and neurocognitive problems. “It’s not a quick thing where they go through one visit and are better the next day,” he stressed. “It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of effort, a little bit of homework — there are no silver bullets, no magic medications.”

A quick fix was definitely not in the cards for Dean Jones, PhD, who could barely move when he developed long COVID in May 2023. A 74-year-old biochemist and professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, he’d recovered fully the first time he had COVID, in August 2022, but had a completely different experience the second time. He had been vaccinated four times when he began experiencing chronic fatigue, intense exertion-induced migraines, severe airway congestion, brain fog, and shortness of breath. The symptoms began after Memorial Day and worsened over the next month.

His resting heart rate began racing even when he was sleeping, jumping from 53 to 70 beats per minute. “It was almost as though the virus had hit my heart rather than the lungs alone,” he said.

Doctors prescribed multiple inhalers and glucocorticoids to calm Jones’s immune system. The worst symptoms began to abate after a few weeks. The bad ones continued for fully 2 months, severely limiting Jones’s activity. Although he no longer slept all day, just walking from one room to another was exhausting. A dedicated scientist who typically worked 10-15 hours a day before getting sick, he was lucky to focus on work-related tasks for a fraction of that time.

Although the migraines went away early on, the headaches remained until well into the fall. Jones’s energy level gradually returned, and by Christmas, he was beginning to feel as healthy as he had before getting COVID in May.

Still, he’s not complaining that it took so long to get better. “At 74, there’s a lot of colleagues who have already passed away,” he said. “I respect the realities of my age. There are so many people who died from COVID that I’m thankful I had those vaccines. I’m thankful that I pulled through it and was able to rebound.”
 

Time Helps Healing — But Prompt Care Still Needed

Recovery is the case for most patients with long COVID, said Lisa Sanders, MD, medical director of the Yale New Haven Health Systems Long COVID Consultation Clinic, which opened in March 2023. Although the clinic has a small segment of patients who have had the condition since 2020, “people who recover, who are most people, move on,” she said. “Even the patients who sometimes have to wait a month or so to see me, some of them say, ‘I’m already starting to get better. I wasn’t sure I should come.’”

Maio, too, is recovering but only after multiple visits to the emergency room and a neurologist in late December and early January. The third emergency room trip was prompted after a brief episode in which she lost the feeling in her legs, which began convulsing. A CAT scan showed severely constricted blood vessels in her brain, leading the medical team to speculate she might have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which can trigger the thunderclap headaches that had been causing her such misery.

After her third such headache prompted a fourth emergency room visit, further tests confirmed RCVS, which doctors said was related to inflammation caused by COVID. Maio was then admitted to the hospital, where she spent 4 days starting on a regimen of blood pressure medication, magnesium for the headaches, and oxycodone for pain management.

The TV show Maio works on went back into production after the holidays. She went back at the end of January. She’s still having headaches, though they’re less intense, and she’s still taking medication. She was scheduled for another test to look at her blood vessels in February.

Maio has yet to forgive herself for skipping the last booster, even though there’s no guarantee it would have prevented her from getting sick. Her message for others: it’s better to be safe than to be as sorry as she is.

“I’ll never, ever be persuaded by people who don’t believe in vaccines because I believe in science, and I believe in vaccines — that’s why people don’t die at the age of 30 anymore,” she said. “I really think that people need to know about this and what to expect. Because it is horrendous. It is very painful. I would never want anyone to go through this. Ever.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It was only 3 years ago when we called the pathogen we now refer to as the coronavirus “nCOV-19.” It was, in many ways, more descriptive than what we have today. The little “n” there stood for “novel” — and it was really that little “n” that caused us all the trouble.

You see, coronaviruses themselves were not really new to us. Understudied, perhaps, but with four strains running around the globe at any time giving rise to the common cold, these were viruses our bodies understood.

But the coronavirus discovered in 2019 was novel — not just to the world, but to our own immune systems. It was different enough from its circulating relatives that our immune memory cells failed to recognize it. Instead of acting like a cold, it acted like nothing we had seen before, at least in our lifetime. The story of the pandemic is very much a bildungsroman of our immune systems — a story of how our immunity grew up.

The difference between the start of 2020 and now, when infections with the coronavirus remain common but not as deadly, can be measured in terms of immune education. Some of our immune systems were educated by infection, some by vaccination, and many by both.

When the first vaccines emerged in December 2020, the opportunity to educate our immune systems was still huge. Though, at the time, an estimated 20 million had been infected in the US and 350,000 had died, there was a large population that remained immunologically naive. I was one of them.

If 2020 into early 2021 was the era of immune education, the postvaccine period was the era of the variant. From one COVID strain to two, to five, to innumerable, our immune memory — trained on a specific version of the virus or its spike protein — became imperfect again. Not naive; these variants were not “novel” in the way COVID-19 was novel, but they were different. And different enough to cause infection.

Following the playbook of another virus that loves to come dressed up in different outfits, the flu virus, we find ourselves in the booster era — a world where yearly doses of a vaccine, ideally matched to the variants circulating when the vaccine is given, are the recommendation if not the norm.

But questions remain about the vaccination program, particularly around who should get it. And two populations with big question marks over their heads are (1) people who have already been infected and (2) kids, because their risk for bad outcomes is so much lower.

This week, we finally have some evidence that can shed light on these questions. The study under the spotlight is this one, appearing in JAMA, which tries to analyze the ability of the bivalent vaccine — that’s the second one to come out, around September  2022 — to protect kids from COVID-19.

Now, right off the bat, this was not a randomized trial. The studies that established the viability of the mRNA vaccine platform were; they happened before the vaccine was authorized. But trials of the bivalent vaccine were mostly limited to proving immune response, not protection from disease.

Nevertheless, with some good observational methods and some statistics, we can try to tease out whether bivalent vaccines in kids worked.

The study combines three prospective cohort studies. The details are in the paper, but what you need to know is that the special sauce of these studies was that the kids were tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis, whether they had symptoms or not. This is critical because asymptomatic infections can transmit COVID-19.

Let’s do the variables of interest. First and foremost, the bivalent vaccine. Some of these kids got the bivalent vaccine, some didn’t. Other key variables include prior vaccination with the monovalent vaccine. Some had been vaccinated with the monovalent vaccine before, some hadn’t. And, of course, prior infection. Some had been infected before (based on either nasal swabs or blood tests).

Let’s focus first on the primary exposure of interest: getting that bivalent vaccine. Again, this was not randomly assigned; kids who got the bivalent vaccine were different from those who did not. In general, they lived in smaller households, they were more likely to be White, less likely to have had a prior COVID infection, and quite a bit more likely to have at least one chronic condition.

JAMA

JAMA

JAMA

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It was only 3 years ago when we called the pathogen we now refer to as the coronavirus “nCOV-19.” It was, in many ways, more descriptive than what we have today. The little “n” there stood for “novel” — and it was really that little “n” that caused us all the trouble.

You see, coronaviruses themselves were not really new to us. Understudied, perhaps, but with four strains running around the globe at any time giving rise to the common cold, these were viruses our bodies understood.

But the coronavirus discovered in 2019 was novel — not just to the world, but to our own immune systems. It was different enough from its circulating relatives that our immune memory cells failed to recognize it. Instead of acting like a cold, it acted like nothing we had seen before, at least in our lifetime. The story of the pandemic is very much a bildungsroman of our immune systems — a story of how our immunity grew up.

The difference between the start of 2020 and now, when infections with the coronavirus remain common but not as deadly, can be measured in terms of immune education. Some of our immune systems were educated by infection, some by vaccination, and many by both.

When the first vaccines emerged in December 2020, the opportunity to educate our immune systems was still huge. Though, at the time, an estimated 20 million had been infected in the US and 350,000 had died, there was a large population that remained immunologically naive. I was one of them.

If 2020 into early 2021 was the era of immune education, the postvaccine period was the era of the variant. From one COVID strain to two, to five, to innumerable, our immune memory — trained on a specific version of the virus or its spike protein — became imperfect again. Not naive; these variants were not “novel” in the way COVID-19 was novel, but they were different. And different enough to cause infection.

Following the playbook of another virus that loves to come dressed up in different outfits, the flu virus, we find ourselves in the booster era — a world where yearly doses of a vaccine, ideally matched to the variants circulating when the vaccine is given, are the recommendation if not the norm.

But questions remain about the vaccination program, particularly around who should get it. And two populations with big question marks over their heads are (1) people who have already been infected and (2) kids, because their risk for bad outcomes is so much lower.

This week, we finally have some evidence that can shed light on these questions. The study under the spotlight is this one, appearing in JAMA, which tries to analyze the ability of the bivalent vaccine — that’s the second one to come out, around September  2022 — to protect kids from COVID-19.

Now, right off the bat, this was not a randomized trial. The studies that established the viability of the mRNA vaccine platform were; they happened before the vaccine was authorized. But trials of the bivalent vaccine were mostly limited to proving immune response, not protection from disease.

Nevertheless, with some good observational methods and some statistics, we can try to tease out whether bivalent vaccines in kids worked.

The study combines three prospective cohort studies. The details are in the paper, but what you need to know is that the special sauce of these studies was that the kids were tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis, whether they had symptoms or not. This is critical because asymptomatic infections can transmit COVID-19.

Let’s do the variables of interest. First and foremost, the bivalent vaccine. Some of these kids got the bivalent vaccine, some didn’t. Other key variables include prior vaccination with the monovalent vaccine. Some had been vaccinated with the monovalent vaccine before, some hadn’t. And, of course, prior infection. Some had been infected before (based on either nasal swabs or blood tests).

Let’s focus first on the primary exposure of interest: getting that bivalent vaccine. Again, this was not randomly assigned; kids who got the bivalent vaccine were different from those who did not. In general, they lived in smaller households, they were more likely to be White, less likely to have had a prior COVID infection, and quite a bit more likely to have at least one chronic condition.

JAMA

JAMA

JAMA

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It was only 3 years ago when we called the pathogen we now refer to as the coronavirus “nCOV-19.” It was, in many ways, more descriptive than what we have today. The little “n” there stood for “novel” — and it was really that little “n” that caused us all the trouble.

You see, coronaviruses themselves were not really new to us. Understudied, perhaps, but with four strains running around the globe at any time giving rise to the common cold, these were viruses our bodies understood.

But the coronavirus discovered in 2019 was novel — not just to the world, but to our own immune systems. It was different enough from its circulating relatives that our immune memory cells failed to recognize it. Instead of acting like a cold, it acted like nothing we had seen before, at least in our lifetime. The story of the pandemic is very much a bildungsroman of our immune systems — a story of how our immunity grew up.

The difference between the start of 2020 and now, when infections with the coronavirus remain common but not as deadly, can be measured in terms of immune education. Some of our immune systems were educated by infection, some by vaccination, and many by both.

When the first vaccines emerged in December 2020, the opportunity to educate our immune systems was still huge. Though, at the time, an estimated 20 million had been infected in the US and 350,000 had died, there was a large population that remained immunologically naive. I was one of them.

If 2020 into early 2021 was the era of immune education, the postvaccine period was the era of the variant. From one COVID strain to two, to five, to innumerable, our immune memory — trained on a specific version of the virus or its spike protein — became imperfect again. Not naive; these variants were not “novel” in the way COVID-19 was novel, but they were different. And different enough to cause infection.

Following the playbook of another virus that loves to come dressed up in different outfits, the flu virus, we find ourselves in the booster era — a world where yearly doses of a vaccine, ideally matched to the variants circulating when the vaccine is given, are the recommendation if not the norm.

But questions remain about the vaccination program, particularly around who should get it. And two populations with big question marks over their heads are (1) people who have already been infected and (2) kids, because their risk for bad outcomes is so much lower.

This week, we finally have some evidence that can shed light on these questions. The study under the spotlight is this one, appearing in JAMA, which tries to analyze the ability of the bivalent vaccine — that’s the second one to come out, around September  2022 — to protect kids from COVID-19.

Now, right off the bat, this was not a randomized trial. The studies that established the viability of the mRNA vaccine platform were; they happened before the vaccine was authorized. But trials of the bivalent vaccine were mostly limited to proving immune response, not protection from disease.

Nevertheless, with some good observational methods and some statistics, we can try to tease out whether bivalent vaccines in kids worked.

The study combines three prospective cohort studies. The details are in the paper, but what you need to know is that the special sauce of these studies was that the kids were tested for COVID-19 on a weekly basis, whether they had symptoms or not. This is critical because asymptomatic infections can transmit COVID-19.

Let’s do the variables of interest. First and foremost, the bivalent vaccine. Some of these kids got the bivalent vaccine, some didn’t. Other key variables include prior vaccination with the monovalent vaccine. Some had been vaccinated with the monovalent vaccine before, some hadn’t. And, of course, prior infection. Some had been infected before (based on either nasal swabs or blood tests).

Let’s focus first on the primary exposure of interest: getting that bivalent vaccine. Again, this was not randomly assigned; kids who got the bivalent vaccine were different from those who did not. In general, they lived in smaller households, they were more likely to be White, less likely to have had a prior COVID infection, and quite a bit more likely to have at least one chronic condition.

JAMA

JAMA

JAMA

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“New antibiotics discovered using AI!”

That’s how headlines read in December 2023, when MIT researchers announced a new class of antibiotics that could wipe out the drug-resistant superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in mice.

Powered by deep learning, the study was a significant breakthrough. Few new antibiotics have come out since the 1960s, and this one in particular could be crucial in fighting tough-to-treat MRSA, which kills more than 10,000 people annually in the United States.

But as remarkable as the antibiotic discovery was, it may not be the most impactful part of this study.

The researchers used a method known as explainable artificial intelligence (AI), which unveils the AI’s reasoning process, sometimes known as the black box because it’s hidden from the user. Their work in this emerging field could be pivotal in advancing new drug design.

“Of course, we view the antibiotic-discovery angle to be very important,” said Felix Wong, PhD, a colead author of the study and postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “But I think equally important, or maybe even more important, is really our method of opening up the black box.”

The black box is generally thought of as impenetrable in complex machine learning models, and that poses a challenge in the drug discovery realm.

“A major bottleneck in AI-ML-driven drug discovery is that nobody knows what the heck is going on,” said Dr. Wong. Models have such powerful architectures that their decision-making is mysterious.

Researchers input data, such as patient features, and the model says what drugs might be effective. But researchers have no idea how the model arrived at its predictions — until now.

What the Researchers Did

Dr. Wong and his colleagues first mined 39,000 compounds for antibiotic activity against MRSA. They fed information about the compounds’ chemical structures and antibiotic activity into their machine learning model. With this, they “trained” the model to predict whether a compound is antibacterial.

Next, they used additional deep learning to narrow the field, ruling out compounds toxic to humans. Then, deploying their various models at once, they screened 12 million commercially available compounds. Five classes emerged as likely MRSA fighters. Further testing of 280 compounds from the five classes produced the final results: Two compounds from the same class. Both reduced MRSA infection in mouse models.

How did the computer flag these compounds? The researchers sought to answer that question by figuring out which chemical structures the model had been looking for.

A chemical structure can be “pruned” — that is, scientists can remove certain atoms and bonds to reveal an underlying substructure. The MIT researchers used the Monte Carlo Tree Search, a commonly used algorithm in machine learning, to select which atoms and bonds to edit out. Then they fed the pruned substructures into their model to find out which was likely responsible for the antibacterial activity.

“The main idea is we can pinpoint which substructure of a chemical structure is causative instead of just correlated with high antibiotic activity,” Dr. Wong said.

This could fuel new “design-driven” or generative AI approaches where these substructures become “starting points to design entirely unseen, unprecedented antibiotics,” Dr. Wong said. “That’s one of the key efforts that we’ve been working on since the publication of this paper.”

More broadly, their method could lead to discoveries in drug classes beyond antibiotics, such as antivirals and anticancer drugs, according to Dr. Wong.

“This is the first major study that I’ve seen seeking to incorporate explainability into deep learning models in the context of antibiotics,” said César de la Fuente, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, whose lab has been engaged in AI for antibiotic discovery for the past 5 years.

“It’s kind of like going into the black box with a magnifying lens and figuring out what is actually happening in there,” Dr. de la Fuente said. “And that will open up possibilities for leveraging those different steps to make better drugs.”

How Explainable AI Could Revolutionize Medicine

In studies, explainable AI is showing its potential for informing clinical decisions as well — flagging high-risk patients and letting doctors know why that calculation was made. University of Washington researchers have used the technology to predict whether a patient will have hypoxemia during surgery, revealing which features contributed to the prediction, such as blood pressure or body mass index. Another study used explainable AI to help emergency medical services providers and emergency room clinicians optimize time — for example, by identifying trauma patients at high risk for acute traumatic coagulopathy more quickly.

A crucial benefit of explainable AI is its ability to audit machine learning models for mistakes, said Su-In Lee, PhD, a computer scientist who led the UW research.

For example, a surge of research during the pandemic suggested that AI models could predict COVID-19 infection based on chest x-rays. Dr. Lee’s research used explainable AI to show that many of the studies were not as accurate as they claimed. Her lab revealed that many models› decisions were based not on pathologies but rather on other aspects such as laterality markers in the corners of x-rays or medical devices worn by patients (like pacemakers). She applied the same model auditing technique to AI-powered dermatology devices, digging into the flawed reasoning in their melanoma predictions. 

Explainable AI is beginning to affect drug development too. A 2023 study led by Dr. Lee used it to explain how to select complementary drugs for acute myeloid leukemia patients based on the differentiation levels of cancer cells. And in two other studies aimed at identifying Alzheimer’s therapeutic targets, “explainable AI played a key role in terms of identifying the driver pathway,” she said.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval doesn’t require an understanding of a drug’s mechanism of action. But the issue is being raised more often, including at December’s Health Regulatory Policy Conference at MIT’s Jameel Clinic. And just over a year ago, Dr. Lee predicted that the FDA approval process would come to incorporate explainable AI analysis.

“I didn’t hesitate,” Dr. Lee said, regarding her prediction. “We didn’t see this in 2023, so I won’t assert that I was right, but I can confidently say that we are progressing in that direction.”

What’s Next?

The MIT study is part of the Antibiotics-AI project, a 7-year effort to leverage AI to find new antibiotics. Phare Bio, a nonprofit started by MIT professor James Collins, PhD, and others, will do clinical testing on the antibiotic candidates.

Even with the AI’s assistance, there’s still a long way to go before clinical approval.

But knowing which elements contribute to a candidate’s effectiveness against MRSA could help the researchers formulate scientific hypotheses and design better validation, Dr. Lee noted. In other words, because they used explainable AI, they could be better positioned for clinical trial success.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“New antibiotics discovered using AI!”

That’s how headlines read in December 2023, when MIT researchers announced a new class of antibiotics that could wipe out the drug-resistant superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in mice.

Powered by deep learning, the study was a significant breakthrough. Few new antibiotics have come out since the 1960s, and this one in particular could be crucial in fighting tough-to-treat MRSA, which kills more than 10,000 people annually in the United States.

But as remarkable as the antibiotic discovery was, it may not be the most impactful part of this study.

The researchers used a method known as explainable artificial intelligence (AI), which unveils the AI’s reasoning process, sometimes known as the black box because it’s hidden from the user. Their work in this emerging field could be pivotal in advancing new drug design.

“Of course, we view the antibiotic-discovery angle to be very important,” said Felix Wong, PhD, a colead author of the study and postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “But I think equally important, or maybe even more important, is really our method of opening up the black box.”

The black box is generally thought of as impenetrable in complex machine learning models, and that poses a challenge in the drug discovery realm.

“A major bottleneck in AI-ML-driven drug discovery is that nobody knows what the heck is going on,” said Dr. Wong. Models have such powerful architectures that their decision-making is mysterious.

Researchers input data, such as patient features, and the model says what drugs might be effective. But researchers have no idea how the model arrived at its predictions — until now.

What the Researchers Did

Dr. Wong and his colleagues first mined 39,000 compounds for antibiotic activity against MRSA. They fed information about the compounds’ chemical structures and antibiotic activity into their machine learning model. With this, they “trained” the model to predict whether a compound is antibacterial.

Next, they used additional deep learning to narrow the field, ruling out compounds toxic to humans. Then, deploying their various models at once, they screened 12 million commercially available compounds. Five classes emerged as likely MRSA fighters. Further testing of 280 compounds from the five classes produced the final results: Two compounds from the same class. Both reduced MRSA infection in mouse models.

How did the computer flag these compounds? The researchers sought to answer that question by figuring out which chemical structures the model had been looking for.

A chemical structure can be “pruned” — that is, scientists can remove certain atoms and bonds to reveal an underlying substructure. The MIT researchers used the Monte Carlo Tree Search, a commonly used algorithm in machine learning, to select which atoms and bonds to edit out. Then they fed the pruned substructures into their model to find out which was likely responsible for the antibacterial activity.

“The main idea is we can pinpoint which substructure of a chemical structure is causative instead of just correlated with high antibiotic activity,” Dr. Wong said.

This could fuel new “design-driven” or generative AI approaches where these substructures become “starting points to design entirely unseen, unprecedented antibiotics,” Dr. Wong said. “That’s one of the key efforts that we’ve been working on since the publication of this paper.”

More broadly, their method could lead to discoveries in drug classes beyond antibiotics, such as antivirals and anticancer drugs, according to Dr. Wong.

“This is the first major study that I’ve seen seeking to incorporate explainability into deep learning models in the context of antibiotics,” said César de la Fuente, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, whose lab has been engaged in AI for antibiotic discovery for the past 5 years.

“It’s kind of like going into the black box with a magnifying lens and figuring out what is actually happening in there,” Dr. de la Fuente said. “And that will open up possibilities for leveraging those different steps to make better drugs.”

How Explainable AI Could Revolutionize Medicine

In studies, explainable AI is showing its potential for informing clinical decisions as well — flagging high-risk patients and letting doctors know why that calculation was made. University of Washington researchers have used the technology to predict whether a patient will have hypoxemia during surgery, revealing which features contributed to the prediction, such as blood pressure or body mass index. Another study used explainable AI to help emergency medical services providers and emergency room clinicians optimize time — for example, by identifying trauma patients at high risk for acute traumatic coagulopathy more quickly.

A crucial benefit of explainable AI is its ability to audit machine learning models for mistakes, said Su-In Lee, PhD, a computer scientist who led the UW research.

For example, a surge of research during the pandemic suggested that AI models could predict COVID-19 infection based on chest x-rays. Dr. Lee’s research used explainable AI to show that many of the studies were not as accurate as they claimed. Her lab revealed that many models› decisions were based not on pathologies but rather on other aspects such as laterality markers in the corners of x-rays or medical devices worn by patients (like pacemakers). She applied the same model auditing technique to AI-powered dermatology devices, digging into the flawed reasoning in their melanoma predictions. 

Explainable AI is beginning to affect drug development too. A 2023 study led by Dr. Lee used it to explain how to select complementary drugs for acute myeloid leukemia patients based on the differentiation levels of cancer cells. And in two other studies aimed at identifying Alzheimer’s therapeutic targets, “explainable AI played a key role in terms of identifying the driver pathway,” she said.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval doesn’t require an understanding of a drug’s mechanism of action. But the issue is being raised more often, including at December’s Health Regulatory Policy Conference at MIT’s Jameel Clinic. And just over a year ago, Dr. Lee predicted that the FDA approval process would come to incorporate explainable AI analysis.

“I didn’t hesitate,” Dr. Lee said, regarding her prediction. “We didn’t see this in 2023, so I won’t assert that I was right, but I can confidently say that we are progressing in that direction.”

What’s Next?

The MIT study is part of the Antibiotics-AI project, a 7-year effort to leverage AI to find new antibiotics. Phare Bio, a nonprofit started by MIT professor James Collins, PhD, and others, will do clinical testing on the antibiotic candidates.

Even with the AI’s assistance, there’s still a long way to go before clinical approval.

But knowing which elements contribute to a candidate’s effectiveness against MRSA could help the researchers formulate scientific hypotheses and design better validation, Dr. Lee noted. In other words, because they used explainable AI, they could be better positioned for clinical trial success.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“New antibiotics discovered using AI!”

That’s how headlines read in December 2023, when MIT researchers announced a new class of antibiotics that could wipe out the drug-resistant superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in mice.

Powered by deep learning, the study was a significant breakthrough. Few new antibiotics have come out since the 1960s, and this one in particular could be crucial in fighting tough-to-treat MRSA, which kills more than 10,000 people annually in the United States.

But as remarkable as the antibiotic discovery was, it may not be the most impactful part of this study.

The researchers used a method known as explainable artificial intelligence (AI), which unveils the AI’s reasoning process, sometimes known as the black box because it’s hidden from the user. Their work in this emerging field could be pivotal in advancing new drug design.

“Of course, we view the antibiotic-discovery angle to be very important,” said Felix Wong, PhD, a colead author of the study and postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “But I think equally important, or maybe even more important, is really our method of opening up the black box.”

The black box is generally thought of as impenetrable in complex machine learning models, and that poses a challenge in the drug discovery realm.

“A major bottleneck in AI-ML-driven drug discovery is that nobody knows what the heck is going on,” said Dr. Wong. Models have such powerful architectures that their decision-making is mysterious.

Researchers input data, such as patient features, and the model says what drugs might be effective. But researchers have no idea how the model arrived at its predictions — until now.

What the Researchers Did

Dr. Wong and his colleagues first mined 39,000 compounds for antibiotic activity against MRSA. They fed information about the compounds’ chemical structures and antibiotic activity into their machine learning model. With this, they “trained” the model to predict whether a compound is antibacterial.

Next, they used additional deep learning to narrow the field, ruling out compounds toxic to humans. Then, deploying their various models at once, they screened 12 million commercially available compounds. Five classes emerged as likely MRSA fighters. Further testing of 280 compounds from the five classes produced the final results: Two compounds from the same class. Both reduced MRSA infection in mouse models.

How did the computer flag these compounds? The researchers sought to answer that question by figuring out which chemical structures the model had been looking for.

A chemical structure can be “pruned” — that is, scientists can remove certain atoms and bonds to reveal an underlying substructure. The MIT researchers used the Monte Carlo Tree Search, a commonly used algorithm in machine learning, to select which atoms and bonds to edit out. Then they fed the pruned substructures into their model to find out which was likely responsible for the antibacterial activity.

“The main idea is we can pinpoint which substructure of a chemical structure is causative instead of just correlated with high antibiotic activity,” Dr. Wong said.

This could fuel new “design-driven” or generative AI approaches where these substructures become “starting points to design entirely unseen, unprecedented antibiotics,” Dr. Wong said. “That’s one of the key efforts that we’ve been working on since the publication of this paper.”

More broadly, their method could lead to discoveries in drug classes beyond antibiotics, such as antivirals and anticancer drugs, according to Dr. Wong.

“This is the first major study that I’ve seen seeking to incorporate explainability into deep learning models in the context of antibiotics,” said César de la Fuente, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, whose lab has been engaged in AI for antibiotic discovery for the past 5 years.

“It’s kind of like going into the black box with a magnifying lens and figuring out what is actually happening in there,” Dr. de la Fuente said. “And that will open up possibilities for leveraging those different steps to make better drugs.”

How Explainable AI Could Revolutionize Medicine

In studies, explainable AI is showing its potential for informing clinical decisions as well — flagging high-risk patients and letting doctors know why that calculation was made. University of Washington researchers have used the technology to predict whether a patient will have hypoxemia during surgery, revealing which features contributed to the prediction, such as blood pressure or body mass index. Another study used explainable AI to help emergency medical services providers and emergency room clinicians optimize time — for example, by identifying trauma patients at high risk for acute traumatic coagulopathy more quickly.

A crucial benefit of explainable AI is its ability to audit machine learning models for mistakes, said Su-In Lee, PhD, a computer scientist who led the UW research.

For example, a surge of research during the pandemic suggested that AI models could predict COVID-19 infection based on chest x-rays. Dr. Lee’s research used explainable AI to show that many of the studies were not as accurate as they claimed. Her lab revealed that many models› decisions were based not on pathologies but rather on other aspects such as laterality markers in the corners of x-rays or medical devices worn by patients (like pacemakers). She applied the same model auditing technique to AI-powered dermatology devices, digging into the flawed reasoning in their melanoma predictions. 

Explainable AI is beginning to affect drug development too. A 2023 study led by Dr. Lee used it to explain how to select complementary drugs for acute myeloid leukemia patients based on the differentiation levels of cancer cells. And in two other studies aimed at identifying Alzheimer’s therapeutic targets, “explainable AI played a key role in terms of identifying the driver pathway,” she said.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval doesn’t require an understanding of a drug’s mechanism of action. But the issue is being raised more often, including at December’s Health Regulatory Policy Conference at MIT’s Jameel Clinic. And just over a year ago, Dr. Lee predicted that the FDA approval process would come to incorporate explainable AI analysis.

“I didn’t hesitate,” Dr. Lee said, regarding her prediction. “We didn’t see this in 2023, so I won’t assert that I was right, but I can confidently say that we are progressing in that direction.”

What’s Next?

The MIT study is part of the Antibiotics-AI project, a 7-year effort to leverage AI to find new antibiotics. Phare Bio, a nonprofit started by MIT professor James Collins, PhD, and others, will do clinical testing on the antibiotic candidates.

Even with the AI’s assistance, there’s still a long way to go before clinical approval.

But knowing which elements contribute to a candidate’s effectiveness against MRSA could help the researchers formulate scientific hypotheses and design better validation, Dr. Lee noted. In other words, because they used explainable AI, they could be better positioned for clinical trial success.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to the rapid development of achalasia, a rare esophageal motility disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• The etiology of achalasia is unclear. Studies have suggested an immune reaction to viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, as a potential cause.
• Researchers studied four adults who developed achalasia within 5 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 1), six with longstanding achalasia predating SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 2), and two with longstanding achalasia with no known SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 3).
• They tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins, as well as inflammatory markers, in esophageal muscle tissue isolated from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Group 1 patients (confirmed or suspected post–COVID-19 achalasia) had the highest levels of the N protein in all four cases and higher levels of the S protein in the two confirmed cases. No N or S protein was detected in group 3.
• The presence of mRNA for SARS-CoV-2 N protein correlated with a significant increase in the inflammatory markers of NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain-containing 3 and tumor necrosis factor. There were no differences in interleukin 18 in groups 1 and 2.
• The S protein was detected in all muscle tissue samples from group 1. It was also detected in some (but not all) samples from group 2 and to a much lesser degree. The presence of S protein was irrespective of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings not only show the continued presence of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in esophageal muscle tissue isolated from subjects with achalasia post infection, but they further correlate this with the presence of a sustained inflammatory response,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Salih Samo, MD, MS, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Motility, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas, was published online on January 24, 2024, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and it was not known which SARS-CoV-2 variant each patient had. The study cannot definitively confirm that SARS-CoV-2 is causative for achalasia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. Samo reported relationships with Castle Biosciences, Sanofi, Evoke, and EndoGastric Solutions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to the rapid development of achalasia, a rare esophageal motility disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• The etiology of achalasia is unclear. Studies have suggested an immune reaction to viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, as a potential cause.
• Researchers studied four adults who developed achalasia within 5 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 1), six with longstanding achalasia predating SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 2), and two with longstanding achalasia with no known SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 3).
• They tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins, as well as inflammatory markers, in esophageal muscle tissue isolated from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Group 1 patients (confirmed or suspected post–COVID-19 achalasia) had the highest levels of the N protein in all four cases and higher levels of the S protein in the two confirmed cases. No N or S protein was detected in group 3.
• The presence of mRNA for SARS-CoV-2 N protein correlated with a significant increase in the inflammatory markers of NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain-containing 3 and tumor necrosis factor. There were no differences in interleukin 18 in groups 1 and 2.
• The S protein was detected in all muscle tissue samples from group 1. It was also detected in some (but not all) samples from group 2 and to a much lesser degree. The presence of S protein was irrespective of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings not only show the continued presence of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in esophageal muscle tissue isolated from subjects with achalasia post infection, but they further correlate this with the presence of a sustained inflammatory response,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Salih Samo, MD, MS, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Motility, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas, was published online on January 24, 2024, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and it was not known which SARS-CoV-2 variant each patient had. The study cannot definitively confirm that SARS-CoV-2 is causative for achalasia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. Samo reported relationships with Castle Biosciences, Sanofi, Evoke, and EndoGastric Solutions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to the rapid development of achalasia, a rare esophageal motility disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• The etiology of achalasia is unclear. Studies have suggested an immune reaction to viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2, as a potential cause.
• Researchers studied four adults who developed achalasia within 5 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 1), six with longstanding achalasia predating SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 2), and two with longstanding achalasia with no known SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 3).
• They tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins, as well as inflammatory markers, in esophageal muscle tissue isolated from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Group 1 patients (confirmed or suspected post–COVID-19 achalasia) had the highest levels of the N protein in all four cases and higher levels of the S protein in the two confirmed cases. No N or S protein was detected in group 3.
• The presence of mRNA for SARS-CoV-2 N protein correlated with a significant increase in the inflammatory markers of NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain-containing 3 and tumor necrosis factor. There were no differences in interleukin 18 in groups 1 and 2.
• The S protein was detected in all muscle tissue samples from group 1. It was also detected in some (but not all) samples from group 2 and to a much lesser degree. The presence of S protein was irrespective of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings not only show the continued presence of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in esophageal muscle tissue isolated from subjects with achalasia post infection, but they further correlate this with the presence of a sustained inflammatory response,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Salih Samo, MD, MS, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Motility, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas, was published online on January 24, 2024, in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and it was not known which SARS-CoV-2 variant each patient had. The study cannot definitively confirm that SARS-CoV-2 is causative for achalasia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. Samo reported relationships with Castle Biosciences, Sanofi, Evoke, and EndoGastric Solutions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.