MDedge Infectious Disease

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.

The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.

I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”

Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.

Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.

Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.

You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.

Just because something seems promising in early studies doesn’t mean it will pan out. It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.

I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.

Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.

The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.

I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”

Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.

Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.

Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.

You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.

Just because something seems promising in early studies doesn’t mean it will pan out. It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.

I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.

Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A recent article in Cell & Bioscience suggested that regular coffee consumption can reduce the risk of COVID infections.

The study does make some interesting points about the benefits of coffee’s different polyphenols and antioxidants and their effects on different COVID variants. Most of it is based on lab data, although one section, using serum from coffee versus water drinkers, did find that it was more effective at inhibiting the virions. Caffeinated versus decaffeinated didn’t matter.

I’m not saying coffee doesn’t impair the virus. The data are worth looking at. But the majority of adults in North America, Europe, and pretty much the entire planet drink coffee on a regular basis. A large number of them still caught COVID. Would they have had worse cases if they didn’t drink coffee? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem here is that, as always, preliminary data like this get pushed into mass media, making it sound like “COFFEE CURES COVID!!!” Never mind that that’s not what the article said, but it sure gets clicks and retweets and FaceBook “likes.”

Suddenly fringe groups are claiming the coffee cure was there all along, and hidden from them by the evil government-pharma-medical cartel. Others claim the research is flawed because of this or that. The signal gets drowned out by the noise.

Definitely, food can be a medicine. Look at all the benefits proven of the Mediterranean diet. Coffee may help, especially if we can identify and isolate the specific components that reduce COVID risk. But, as they always say at the end, the study is preliminary and further research is needed.

Once or twice a year, an adult with epilepsy comes in, waving a copy of the ketogenic diet around and upset that I never tried it on them — again proof of the evil government-pharma-medical cartel that I’m in league with. I calm them down and explain the diet in detail. Maybe 50% of them decide to go ahead with it. In 25 years of practice, my record for an otherwise normal adult sticking with it is 5 days.

You don’t have to go too far back to remember Linus Pauling, an absolutely brilliant scientist, but not the best of nutritionists. With two Nobel prizes behind him, he took a stab at medicine in the 1970s, arguing that megadoses of vitamin C worked for the common cold. While it may be good for us, and certainly most people like orange juice, but those claims about the common cold never panned out. In fact, we’re no closer to curing it now than we were then.

Just because something seems promising in early studies doesn’t mean it will pan out. It might, but this doesn’t mean the “truth” is being maliciously hidden by an evil cartel. It just means we have (as always) more to learn.

I’ll still drink my single cup of coffee every weekday morning. I’m a creature of habit, and heaven knows I need the caffeine. If it also boosts my immune system, so much the better.

Besides, we still have that universal antimicrobial called chicken soup.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Unnecessary or incorrect use of topical antifungal medications is driving the spread of fungal infections like ringworm, which are becoming more difficult to treat, according to a January 11 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

If a patient’s condition is not caused by a fungus but is treated as such, treatment will be ineffective.

The authors strongly advise primary care clinicians to confirm ringworm diagnoses through lab testing before prescribing treatments such as clotrimazole or combinations of antifungals and corticosteroids. And because many topical treatments are also available over-the-counter, doctors should advise patients about how to use them correctly.

“In the last few years, there have been many antifungal resistant cases of tinea corporisand onychomycosisreported,” or ringworm and finger or toenail infections, respectively, said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and an author of the study.

Many of these cases originated in South Asia and have also been reported in Europe and Canada. In 2023, the first cases of a new strain of antifungal-resistant ringworm were reported in the United States. This species, Trichophyton indotineae, does not respond to topical medications, requiring oral treatment instead.

“It’s really a serious problem and a huge public health concern,” Dr. Lipner said. 

For the new study, Dr. Lipner and colleagues examined prescription patterns from 2021 Medicare Part D claims of topical antifungals. They report that 6.5 million topical antifungal prescriptions were filled that year, some of which included steroids in the formulation. Primary care clinicians wrote 40% of these prescriptions, the most for any clinician group. The estimate is almost certainly an undercount of topical antifungal use because the database did not include over-the-counter purchases or data from other insurance payers.

The number of prescriptions equate to 1 in every 8 Medicare Part D beneficiary receiving an antifungal, the researchers reported. 

“If I think about the patients that come into my office, I’m certainly not giving an antifungal to 1 in 8 of them, and I see a lot of fungal infections,” Dr. Lipner said. The findings suggest to Dr. Lipner that some clinicians are diagnosing ringworm by eyesight alone rather than confirming the diagnosis with techniques such as microscopy, fungal culture testing, or polymerase chain reaction testing. 

Sometimes what looks like ringworm may actually be eczema, in which case, the topical antifungal would not be appropriate, according to Avrom Caplan, MD, a dermatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“If you’re prescribing something to somebody that they don’t need, you’re basically exposing them to the side effects without the benefit,” Dr. Caplan, who was not part of the study, said. 

Dr. Caplan, who reported the first cases of ringworm that only responded to oral medications in the United States, stressed that topical treatments work fine for many ringworm cases today. But if indiscriminate prescribing spurs the development of more resilient fungi, more situations may arise in which only oral medications work in the future, Dr. Caplan said. In addition, oral medications are inherently more demanding on a patient than something they can rub on their skin, Dr. Caplan added.

“We hope that physicians will really think hard about this study and change their practices if they’re not confirming the diagnosis,” Dr. Lipner said.

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Caplan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Unnecessary or incorrect use of topical antifungal medications is driving the spread of fungal infections like ringworm, which are becoming more difficult to treat, according to a January 11 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

If a patient’s condition is not caused by a fungus but is treated as such, treatment will be ineffective.

The authors strongly advise primary care clinicians to confirm ringworm diagnoses through lab testing before prescribing treatments such as clotrimazole or combinations of antifungals and corticosteroids. And because many topical treatments are also available over-the-counter, doctors should advise patients about how to use them correctly.

“In the last few years, there have been many antifungal resistant cases of tinea corporisand onychomycosisreported,” or ringworm and finger or toenail infections, respectively, said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and an author of the study.

Many of these cases originated in South Asia and have also been reported in Europe and Canada. In 2023, the first cases of a new strain of antifungal-resistant ringworm were reported in the United States. This species, Trichophyton indotineae, does not respond to topical medications, requiring oral treatment instead.

“It’s really a serious problem and a huge public health concern,” Dr. Lipner said. 

For the new study, Dr. Lipner and colleagues examined prescription patterns from 2021 Medicare Part D claims of topical antifungals. They report that 6.5 million topical antifungal prescriptions were filled that year, some of which included steroids in the formulation. Primary care clinicians wrote 40% of these prescriptions, the most for any clinician group. The estimate is almost certainly an undercount of topical antifungal use because the database did not include over-the-counter purchases or data from other insurance payers.

The number of prescriptions equate to 1 in every 8 Medicare Part D beneficiary receiving an antifungal, the researchers reported. 

“If I think about the patients that come into my office, I’m certainly not giving an antifungal to 1 in 8 of them, and I see a lot of fungal infections,” Dr. Lipner said. The findings suggest to Dr. Lipner that some clinicians are diagnosing ringworm by eyesight alone rather than confirming the diagnosis with techniques such as microscopy, fungal culture testing, or polymerase chain reaction testing. 

Sometimes what looks like ringworm may actually be eczema, in which case, the topical antifungal would not be appropriate, according to Avrom Caplan, MD, a dermatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“If you’re prescribing something to somebody that they don’t need, you’re basically exposing them to the side effects without the benefit,” Dr. Caplan, who was not part of the study, said. 

Dr. Caplan, who reported the first cases of ringworm that only responded to oral medications in the United States, stressed that topical treatments work fine for many ringworm cases today. But if indiscriminate prescribing spurs the development of more resilient fungi, more situations may arise in which only oral medications work in the future, Dr. Caplan said. In addition, oral medications are inherently more demanding on a patient than something they can rub on their skin, Dr. Caplan added.

“We hope that physicians will really think hard about this study and change their practices if they’re not confirming the diagnosis,” Dr. Lipner said.

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Caplan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Unnecessary or incorrect use of topical antifungal medications is driving the spread of fungal infections like ringworm, which are becoming more difficult to treat, according to a January 11 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

If a patient’s condition is not caused by a fungus but is treated as such, treatment will be ineffective.

The authors strongly advise primary care clinicians to confirm ringworm diagnoses through lab testing before prescribing treatments such as clotrimazole or combinations of antifungals and corticosteroids. And because many topical treatments are also available over-the-counter, doctors should advise patients about how to use them correctly.

“In the last few years, there have been many antifungal resistant cases of tinea corporisand onychomycosisreported,” or ringworm and finger or toenail infections, respectively, said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and an author of the study.

Many of these cases originated in South Asia and have also been reported in Europe and Canada. In 2023, the first cases of a new strain of antifungal-resistant ringworm were reported in the United States. This species, Trichophyton indotineae, does not respond to topical medications, requiring oral treatment instead.

“It’s really a serious problem and a huge public health concern,” Dr. Lipner said. 

For the new study, Dr. Lipner and colleagues examined prescription patterns from 2021 Medicare Part D claims of topical antifungals. They report that 6.5 million topical antifungal prescriptions were filled that year, some of which included steroids in the formulation. Primary care clinicians wrote 40% of these prescriptions, the most for any clinician group. The estimate is almost certainly an undercount of topical antifungal use because the database did not include over-the-counter purchases or data from other insurance payers.

The number of prescriptions equate to 1 in every 8 Medicare Part D beneficiary receiving an antifungal, the researchers reported. 

“If I think about the patients that come into my office, I’m certainly not giving an antifungal to 1 in 8 of them, and I see a lot of fungal infections,” Dr. Lipner said. The findings suggest to Dr. Lipner that some clinicians are diagnosing ringworm by eyesight alone rather than confirming the diagnosis with techniques such as microscopy, fungal culture testing, or polymerase chain reaction testing. 

Sometimes what looks like ringworm may actually be eczema, in which case, the topical antifungal would not be appropriate, according to Avrom Caplan, MD, a dermatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“If you’re prescribing something to somebody that they don’t need, you’re basically exposing them to the side effects without the benefit,” Dr. Caplan, who was not part of the study, said. 

Dr. Caplan, who reported the first cases of ringworm that only responded to oral medications in the United States, stressed that topical treatments work fine for many ringworm cases today. But if indiscriminate prescribing spurs the development of more resilient fungi, more situations may arise in which only oral medications work in the future, Dr. Caplan said. In addition, oral medications are inherently more demanding on a patient than something they can rub on their skin, Dr. Caplan added.

“We hope that physicians will really think hard about this study and change their practices if they’re not confirming the diagnosis,” Dr. Lipner said.

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Caplan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daily toothbrushing is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), especially in patients on mechanical ventilation. This practice also is associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, shorter ICU admissions, and shorter ventilator dependency. These are the findings of a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Hospital policies must reassess the importance of oral hygiene even, or perhaps especially, in situations in which attention is focused elsewhere.

Oral Microbiota and Lungs

HAP largely results from the aspiration of microorganisms present in the oral cavity. In fact, the oral microbiota comprises an estimated 700 species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. There is a known link between oral health and the development of pneumonia, and rigorous oral hygiene is part of the recommendations for preventing HAP. But the methods that should be used for ensuring good hygiene haven’t been determined. The use of chlorhexidine-based mouthwash is debated because there is no evidence that it prevents pneumonia and because some studies have suggested a link between chlorhexidine and higher mortality rates.

Toothbrushing is potentially more effective than antiseptic at reducing the oral microbiota because the mechanical action breaks up plaque and other biofilms. Yet, guidelines have focused very little on brushing as a measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections, meaning that every hospital has its own way of doing things.
 

What Data Show

Selina Ehrenzeller, MD, and Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, of the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a systematic literature analysis to identify randomized clinical studies in which daily toothbrushing was shown to affect the risk for HAP in adult hospital inpatients. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. The effective population size was 2786 patients.

Daily toothbrushing was associated with a 33% lower risk for HAP (relative risk [RR], 0.67) and a 29% lower risk for ICU mortality (RR, 0.81). Reduction in pneumonia incidence was significant for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.68) but not for patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Toothbrushing for patients in the ICU was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, −1.24 days) and a shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference, −1.78 days). Brushing twice a day vs more frequent intervals was associated with similar effect estimates. No differences were seen in duration of stay in various ICU subdepartments and in the use of antibiotics that were linked to daily toothbrushing.
 

Expert Opinion

“This study represents an exciting contribution to infection prevention and reinforces the notion that routine toothbrushing is an essential component of standard of care in ventilated patients,” Rupak Datta, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and specialist in antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings, wrote in a commentary on the study. According to Dr. Datta, there is still uncertainty regarding the importance of this practice in preventing nonventilator-HAP, as the investigators could identify only two studies with nonventilated patients that met inclusion criteria. Other studies will be needed to help standardize toothbrushing in hospital patients admitted in general. “As the literature on HAP evolves,” concluded Dr. Datta, “oral hygiene may take on an indispensable role, similar to hand washing, in preventing and controlling hospital-acquired infections.”

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

Daily toothbrushing is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), especially in patients on mechanical ventilation. This practice also is associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, shorter ICU admissions, and shorter ventilator dependency. These are the findings of a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Hospital policies must reassess the importance of oral hygiene even, or perhaps especially, in situations in which attention is focused elsewhere.

Oral Microbiota and Lungs

HAP largely results from the aspiration of microorganisms present in the oral cavity. In fact, the oral microbiota comprises an estimated 700 species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. There is a known link between oral health and the development of pneumonia, and rigorous oral hygiene is part of the recommendations for preventing HAP. But the methods that should be used for ensuring good hygiene haven’t been determined. The use of chlorhexidine-based mouthwash is debated because there is no evidence that it prevents pneumonia and because some studies have suggested a link between chlorhexidine and higher mortality rates.

Toothbrushing is potentially more effective than antiseptic at reducing the oral microbiota because the mechanical action breaks up plaque and other biofilms. Yet, guidelines have focused very little on brushing as a measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections, meaning that every hospital has its own way of doing things.
 

What Data Show

Selina Ehrenzeller, MD, and Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, of the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a systematic literature analysis to identify randomized clinical studies in which daily toothbrushing was shown to affect the risk for HAP in adult hospital inpatients. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. The effective population size was 2786 patients.

Daily toothbrushing was associated with a 33% lower risk for HAP (relative risk [RR], 0.67) and a 29% lower risk for ICU mortality (RR, 0.81). Reduction in pneumonia incidence was significant for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.68) but not for patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Toothbrushing for patients in the ICU was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, −1.24 days) and a shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference, −1.78 days). Brushing twice a day vs more frequent intervals was associated with similar effect estimates. No differences were seen in duration of stay in various ICU subdepartments and in the use of antibiotics that were linked to daily toothbrushing.
 

Expert Opinion

“This study represents an exciting contribution to infection prevention and reinforces the notion that routine toothbrushing is an essential component of standard of care in ventilated patients,” Rupak Datta, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and specialist in antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings, wrote in a commentary on the study. According to Dr. Datta, there is still uncertainty regarding the importance of this practice in preventing nonventilator-HAP, as the investigators could identify only two studies with nonventilated patients that met inclusion criteria. Other studies will be needed to help standardize toothbrushing in hospital patients admitted in general. “As the literature on HAP evolves,” concluded Dr. Datta, “oral hygiene may take on an indispensable role, similar to hand washing, in preventing and controlling hospital-acquired infections.”

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

Daily toothbrushing is associated with a reduced incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), especially in patients on mechanical ventilation. This practice also is associated with lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, shorter ICU admissions, and shorter ventilator dependency. These are the findings of a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Hospital policies must reassess the importance of oral hygiene even, or perhaps especially, in situations in which attention is focused elsewhere.

Oral Microbiota and Lungs

HAP largely results from the aspiration of microorganisms present in the oral cavity. In fact, the oral microbiota comprises an estimated 700 species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa. There is a known link between oral health and the development of pneumonia, and rigorous oral hygiene is part of the recommendations for preventing HAP. But the methods that should be used for ensuring good hygiene haven’t been determined. The use of chlorhexidine-based mouthwash is debated because there is no evidence that it prevents pneumonia and because some studies have suggested a link between chlorhexidine and higher mortality rates.

Toothbrushing is potentially more effective than antiseptic at reducing the oral microbiota because the mechanical action breaks up plaque and other biofilms. Yet, guidelines have focused very little on brushing as a measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections, meaning that every hospital has its own way of doing things.
 

What Data Show

Selina Ehrenzeller, MD, and Michael Klompas, MD, MPH, of the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a systematic literature analysis to identify randomized clinical studies in which daily toothbrushing was shown to affect the risk for HAP in adult hospital inpatients. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were used for the meta-analysis. The effective population size was 2786 patients.

Daily toothbrushing was associated with a 33% lower risk for HAP (relative risk [RR], 0.67) and a 29% lower risk for ICU mortality (RR, 0.81). Reduction in pneumonia incidence was significant for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.68) but not for patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Toothbrushing for patients in the ICU was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, −1.24 days) and a shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference, −1.78 days). Brushing twice a day vs more frequent intervals was associated with similar effect estimates. No differences were seen in duration of stay in various ICU subdepartments and in the use of antibiotics that were linked to daily toothbrushing.
 

Expert Opinion

“This study represents an exciting contribution to infection prevention and reinforces the notion that routine toothbrushing is an essential component of standard of care in ventilated patients,” Rupak Datta, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and specialist in antimicrobial resistance in hospital settings, wrote in a commentary on the study. According to Dr. Datta, there is still uncertainty regarding the importance of this practice in preventing nonventilator-HAP, as the investigators could identify only two studies with nonventilated patients that met inclusion criteria. Other studies will be needed to help standardize toothbrushing in hospital patients admitted in general. “As the literature on HAP evolves,” concluded Dr. Datta, “oral hygiene may take on an indispensable role, similar to hand washing, in preventing and controlling hospital-acquired infections.”

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

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

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

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

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

You may have never heard of it, but you may have had it. More evidence points to “long flu” being a real phenomenon, with a large study showing symptoms persist at least 4 weeks or more after some people are hospitalized for the flu.

Researchers compared long flu to long COVID-19 and found long flu happened less often and was less severe overall. This difference could be because the flu mostly affects the lungs whereas COVID can affect any number of organ systems in the body.

The investigators were surprised that both long flu and long COVID were linked to a greater burden of health loss, compared to either initial infection.

“I think COVID and long COVID made us realize that infections have long-term consequences, and often the toll of those long-term consequences is much larger than the toll of acute disease,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, senior author of the study and chief of research and development at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“I know, having studied long COVID for the past 4 years, I should not be surprised. But I am in awe of what these infections can do to the long-term health of affected individuals,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who is also a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues Yan Xie, PhD, and Taeyoung Choi, MS, analyzed US Department of Veterans Affairs medical records. They compared 81,280 people hospitalized with COVID to 10,985 people hospitalized with the flu before the COVID pandemic. They checked up to 18 months after initial infections to see who developed long flu or long COVID symptoms.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

It’s an interesting study, said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the Department of Medicine and a hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, NY, who was not part of the research.

“There is a concern with many viruses that you can have long-term consequences,” said Dr. Glatt, who is also a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He said the possibility of long-term symptoms with the flu is not new, “but it’s nice to have more data.”

People hospitalized with COVID had a 50% higher risk of death during the study period than people hospitalized with the flu. Put another way, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID, about eight more died than those hospitalized with the flu over the following 18 months. Hospital admissions and admissions to the intensive care unit were also higher in the long COVID group — 20 more people and nine more people, respectively, for every 100 people admitted to the hospital with COVID.

More research is needed, Dr. Glatt said. “With many of these viruses, we don’t understand what they do to the body.” A prospective study to see if antiviral treatments make a difference, for example, would be useful, he noted.

Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues would like to do more studies.

“We need to more deeply understand how and why acute infections cause long-term illness,” he said, noting that he also wants to investigate ways to prevent and treat the long-term effects.

“Much remains to be done, and we are deeply committed to doing our best to develop those answers.”

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

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.