MDedge Infectious Disease

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”

Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue. 

The selling and buying of USMLE questions online have become rampant in recent years, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows. 

Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media. 

“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”

Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range. 

“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.” 

Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?” 

In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years. 
 

How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?

Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass. 

“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”

Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content. 

“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.” 

Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service. 

The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package. 

Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”

A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers. 

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk. 

The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.” 

When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said. 

Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal. 

In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses. 

In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls. 

“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
 

‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’

Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media. 

On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”

In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.

When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said. 

“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”

Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.” 

“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”

USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
 

Cheat-Proofing the USMLE

The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say. 

For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move. 

“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X. 

The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience. 

“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”

Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said. 

A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions. 

“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.” 

Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action. 

He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers. 

“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”

Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue. 

The selling and buying of USMLE questions online have become rampant in recent years, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows. 

Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media. 

“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”

Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range. 

“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.” 

Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?” 

In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years. 
 

How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?

Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass. 

“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”

Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content. 

“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.” 

Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service. 

The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package. 

Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”

A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers. 

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk. 

The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.” 

When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said. 

Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal. 

In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses. 

In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls. 

“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
 

‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’

Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media. 

On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”

In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.

When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said. 

“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”

Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.” 

“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”

USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
 

Cheat-Proofing the USMLE

The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say. 

For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move. 

“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X. 

The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience. 

“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”

Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said. 

A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions. 

“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.” 

Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action. 

He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers. 

“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”

Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue. 

The selling and buying of USMLE questions online have become rampant in recent years, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows. 

Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media. 

“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”

Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range. 

“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.” 

Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?” 

In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years. 
 

How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?

Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass. 

“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”

Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content. 

“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.” 

Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service. 

The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package. 

Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”

A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers. 

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk. 

The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.” 

When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said. 

Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal. 

In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses. 

In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls. 

“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
 

‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’

Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media. 

On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”

In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.

When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said. 

“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”

Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.” 

“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”

USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
 

Cheat-Proofing the USMLE

The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say. 

For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move. 

“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X. 

The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience. 

“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”

Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said. 

A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions. 

“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.” 

Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action. 

He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers. 

“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The vaccine Cervarix was effective in protecting women from cervical cancer when administered between ages 12 and 13 years, according to a new study published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
• Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
• After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
• Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
• They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.

TAKEAWAY:

• No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received. 
• Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.

LIMITATIONS:

Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

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

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

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

If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first 17 weeks of pregnancy, then the risk for congenital rubella in the newborn — which may entail spontaneous abortion, intrauterine death, or severe fetal malformations — is as high as 80%. This risk once frightened patients and clinicians in Italy. Thanks to widespread population vaccination, however, the World Health Organization declared the elimination of endemic transmission of rubella in Italy in 2021. The Italian National Institute of Health took note, and the recent update of the Guidelines for the Management of Physiological Pregnancy no longer recommends offering rubella screening to all pregnant women.

The Rubeo Test

The rubeo test, an analysis for detecting antibodies in the blood produced by vaccination or a past rubella infection, traditionally forms part of the examination package that every doctor prescribes to expectant patients at the beginning of pregnancy. If the test shows that the woman is not vaccinated and has never encountered the virus, making her susceptible to the risk for infection, according to the previous edition of the Guidelines, then the test should be repeated at 17 weeks of gestation. The purpose is to detect any rubella contracted during pregnancy and offer the woman multidisciplinary counseling in the case of a high risk for severe fetal damage. Infection contracted after the 17th week, however, poses only a minimal risk for congenital deafness. There is no treatment to prevent vertical transmission in case of infection during pregnancy.

For women at risk for infection, the old Guidelines also recommended planning vaccination postnatally, with the prospect of protecting future pregnancies. Rubella vaccination is contraindicated during pregnancy because the vaccine could be teratogenic.

Recommendation Update

In the early ‘90s, universal vaccination against rubella for newborns was introduced in Italy. It became one of the 10 mandatory pediatric vaccinations in 2017. In June 2022, the Ministry of Health reported a vaccination coverage of 93.8% among children aged 24 months, a coverage of 93.3% for the first dose, and a coverage of 89.0% for the second dose in the 2003 birth cohort.

“Rubella is a notifiable disease, and in 2013, the newly activated national surveillance system detected one case of congenital rubella per 100,000 newborns. From 2018 onward, no cases have been reported,” said Vittorio Basevi, a gynecologist of the Perinatal Technical-Scientific Advisory Commission in the Emilia Romagna Region and coordinator of the Technical-Scientific Committee that developed the updated Guidelines. “Thanks to extensive vaccination coverage, the infection no longer circulates in Italy. Based on these data, we decided not to offer screening to pregnant women anymore.”

The recommendation to offer rubella vaccination post partum to women without documentation of two doses or previous infection remains confirmed.

Patients Born Abroad 

How should one handle the care of a pregnant woman born in a country where universal rubella vaccination is not provided? The likelihood that she is susceptible to infection is higher than the that of the general Italian population. “On the other hand, since the virus no longer circulates in our country, the probability of contracting the virus during pregnancy is negligible, unless she has recently traveled to her country of origin or come into contact with family members who recently arrived in Italy,” said Dr. Basevi. “The Guidelines refer to offering screening to all pregnant women. In specific cases, it is up to the treating physician to adopt the conduct they deem appropriate in science and conscience.”

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

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.