MDedge Infectious Disease

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 3% of children starting kindergarten in the 2022-2023 school year received an exemption from one of the four key vaccines – the highest exemption rate ever reported in the United States.

Of the 3% of children who got exemptions, 0.2% were for medical reasons and 2.8% for nonmedical reasons, the CDC report said. The overall exemption rate was 2.6% for the previous school year. 

Though more children received exemptions, the overall national vaccination rate remained steady at 93% for children entering kindergarten for the 2022-2023 school year. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall rate was 95%, the CDC said.

“The bad news is that it’s gone down since the pandemic and still hasn’t rebounded,” Sean O’Leary, MD, a University of Colorado pediatric infectious diseases specialist, told The Associated Press. “The good news is that the vast majority of parents are still vaccinating their kids according to the recommended schedule.”

The CDC report did not offer a specific reason for higher vaccine exemptions. But it did note that the increase could be caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID vaccine hesitancy. 

“There is a rising distrust in the health care system,” Amna Husain, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in North Carolina and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told NBC News. Vaccine exemptions “have unfortunately trended upward with it.”

Exemption rates varied across the nation. The CDC said 40 states reported a rise in exemptions and that the exemption rate went over 5% in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. Idaho had the highest exemption rate in 2022 with 12%.

While requirements vary from state to state, most states require students entering kindergarten to receive four vaccines: MMR, DTaP, polio, and chickenpox.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 3% of children starting kindergarten in the 2022-2023 school year received an exemption from one of the four key vaccines – the highest exemption rate ever reported in the United States.

Of the 3% of children who got exemptions, 0.2% were for medical reasons and 2.8% for nonmedical reasons, the CDC report said. The overall exemption rate was 2.6% for the previous school year. 

Though more children received exemptions, the overall national vaccination rate remained steady at 93% for children entering kindergarten for the 2022-2023 school year. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall rate was 95%, the CDC said.

“The bad news is that it’s gone down since the pandemic and still hasn’t rebounded,” Sean O’Leary, MD, a University of Colorado pediatric infectious diseases specialist, told The Associated Press. “The good news is that the vast majority of parents are still vaccinating their kids according to the recommended schedule.”

The CDC report did not offer a specific reason for higher vaccine exemptions. But it did note that the increase could be caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID vaccine hesitancy. 

“There is a rising distrust in the health care system,” Amna Husain, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in North Carolina and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told NBC News. Vaccine exemptions “have unfortunately trended upward with it.”

Exemption rates varied across the nation. The CDC said 40 states reported a rise in exemptions and that the exemption rate went over 5% in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. Idaho had the highest exemption rate in 2022 with 12%.

While requirements vary from state to state, most states require students entering kindergarten to receive four vaccines: MMR, DTaP, polio, and chickenpox.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said 3% of children starting kindergarten in the 2022-2023 school year received an exemption from one of the four key vaccines – the highest exemption rate ever reported in the United States.

Of the 3% of children who got exemptions, 0.2% were for medical reasons and 2.8% for nonmedical reasons, the CDC report said. The overall exemption rate was 2.6% for the previous school year. 

Though more children received exemptions, the overall national vaccination rate remained steady at 93% for children entering kindergarten for the 2022-2023 school year. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall rate was 95%, the CDC said.

“The bad news is that it’s gone down since the pandemic and still hasn’t rebounded,” Sean O’Leary, MD, a University of Colorado pediatric infectious diseases specialist, told The Associated Press. “The good news is that the vast majority of parents are still vaccinating their kids according to the recommended schedule.”

The CDC report did not offer a specific reason for higher vaccine exemptions. But it did note that the increase could be caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID vaccine hesitancy. 

“There is a rising distrust in the health care system,” Amna Husain, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in North Carolina and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told NBC News. Vaccine exemptions “have unfortunately trended upward with it.”

Exemption rates varied across the nation. The CDC said 40 states reported a rise in exemptions and that the exemption rate went over 5% in 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. Idaho had the highest exemption rate in 2022 with 12%.

While requirements vary from state to state, most states require students entering kindergarten to receive four vaccines: MMR, DTaP, polio, and chickenpox.

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

Long COVID can exacerbate existing mental health disorders or cause new-onset psychiatric symptoms, but mental illness does not cause long COVID, experts say.

The consensus guidance statement on the assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID, was published online in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R).

The statement was developed by a task force that included experts from physical medicine, neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and primary care. It is the eighth guidance statement on long COVID published by AAPM&R).

“Many of our patients have reported experiences in which their symptoms of long COVID have been dismissed either by loved ones in the community, or also amongst health care providers, and they’ve been told their symptoms are in their head or due to a mental health condition, but that’s simply not true,” Abby L. Cheng, MD, a physiatrist at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis and a coauthor of the new guidance, said in a press briefing.

“Long COVID is real, and mental health conditions do not cause long COVID,” Dr. Cheng added.
 

Millions of Americans affected

Anxiety and depression have been reported as the second and third most common symptoms of long COVID, according to the guidance statement.

There is some evidence that the body’s inflammatory response – specifically, circulating cytokines – may contribute to the worsening of mental health symptoms or may bring on new symptoms of anxiety or depression, said Dr. Cheng. Cytokines may also affect levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin, she said.

Researchers are also exploring whether the persistence of virus in the body, miniature blood clots in the body and brain, and changes to the gut microbiome affect the mental health of people with long COVID.

Some mental health symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog, sleep disturbances, and tachycardia – can mimic long COVID symptoms, said Dr. Cheng.

The treatment is the same for someone with or without long COVID who has anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or other mental health conditions and includes treatment of coexisting medical conditions, supportive therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy, and pharmacologic interventions, she said.

“Group therapy may have a particular role in the long COVID population because it really provides that social connection and awareness of additional resources in addition to validation of their experiences,” Dr. Cheng said.

The guidance suggests that primary care practitioners – if it’s within their comfort zone and they have the training – can be the first line for managing mental health symptoms.

But for patients whose symptoms are interfering with functioning and their ability to interact with the community, the guidance urges primary care clinicians to refer the patient to a specialist.

“It leaves the door open to them to practice within their scope but also gives guidance as to how, why, and who should be referred to the next level of care,” said Dr. Cheng.

Coauthor Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine at UT Health San Antonio, Texas, said that although fewer people are now getting long COVID, “it’s still an impactful number.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that about 7% of American adults (18 million) and 1.3% of children had experienced long COVID.

Dr. Gutierrez said that it’s an evolving number, as some patients who have a second or third or fourth SARS-CoV-2 infection experience exacerbations of previous bouts of long COVID or develop long COVID for the first time.

“We are still getting new patients on a regular basis with long COVID,” said AAPM&R President Steven R. Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine specialist.

“This is a problem that really is not going away. It is still real and still ever-present,” said Dr. Flanagan, chair of rehabilitation medicine at NYU Langone Health.
 

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

A, B, C, D, E: It’s a short, menacing alphabet representing the five types of virus causing viral hepatitis, a sickness afflicting some 400 million people around the world today.

Hepatitis viruses are a set of very different pathogens that kill 1.4 million people annually and infect more than HIV and the malaria pathogen do combined. Most of the deaths are from cirrhosis of the liver or hepatic cancer due to chronic infections with hepatitis viruses B or C, picked up through contact with contaminated blood.

Hepatitis B was the first of the five to be discovered, in the 1960s, by biochemist Baruch S. Blumberg, MD. Hepatitis A, which is most commonly spread through contaminated food and water, was next, discovered in 1973 by researchers Stephen Mark Feinstone, MD, Albert Kapikian, MD, and Robert Purcell, MD.

Screening tests for those two types of viruses paved the way to discovering a third. In the 1970s, hematologist Harvey J. Alter, MD, examined unexplained cases of hepatitis in patients after blood transfusions and found that only 25% of such cases were caused by the hepatitis B virus, and none were linked to the hepatitis A virus. The rest were caused by an unidentified transmissible agent that could persist in the body as a chronic infection and lead to liver cirrhosis and liver cancer.

The agent behind this disease, named non-A, non-B hepatitis, remained a mystery for a decade until Michael Houghton, PhD, a microbiologist working at the biotechnology company Chiron Corporation, and his team sequenced the agent’s genome in 1989 after years of intensive investigation. They identified it as a novel virus of the family to which yellow fever virus belongs: the flaviviruses, a group of RNA viruses often transmitted through the bite of infected arthropods.

But there was more to the story. Scientists needed to show that this new virus could, indeed, cause hepatitis C on its own – a feat achieved in 1997, when Charles M. Rice, PhD, then a virologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and others succeeded in creating a form of the virus in the lab that could replicate in the only animal model for hepatitis C, the chimpanzee. When they injected the virus into the liver of chimpanzees, it triggered clinical hepatitis, demonstrating the direct connection between hepatitis C and non-A, non-B hepatitis.

The findings led to lifesaving hepatitis C tests to avert infections through transfusions with contaminated blood, as well as for the development of effective antiviral medications to treat the disease. In 2020, in the thick of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Dr. Alter, Dr. Houghton, and Dr. Rice received a Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on identifying the virus.

To learn more about hepatitis C history and the treatment and prevention challenges that remain, Knowable Magazine spoke with Dr. Rice, now at the Rockefeller University, at the 72nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in Germany in June 2023. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What were the challenges at the time you began your research on hepatitis C?

The realization that an agent was behind non-A, non-B hepatitis had initiated a virus hunt to try to figure out what the causative agent was. Dr. Houghton and his group at Chiron won that race and reported the partial sequence of the virus in 1989 in Science.

It was an interesting kind of a dilemma for me as an early-stage assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, where I’d been working on yellow fever. All of a sudden, we had this new human virus that dropped into our laps and joined the flavivirus family; we had to decide if we were going to shift some of our attention to work on this virus. Initially, people in the viral hepatitis field invited us to meetings, but because we were doing work on the related virus, yellow fever, not because we were considered majors player in the field.

The main challenge was that we could not grow the virus in cell culture. And the only experimental model was the chimpanzee, so it was really difficult for laboratories to study this virus.

There were two major goals. One was to establish a cell culture system where you could replicate the virus and study it. And the other was try to create a system where we could do genetics on the virus. It was shown to be an RNA virus, and the collection of tools available for modifying RNA at that time, in the early 1990s, was not the same as it was for DNA. Now that’s changed to some extent, with modern editing technologies.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from this hepatitis C story, it’s that persistence pays off.
 

This journey started with an unknown virus and ended up with treatment in a relatively short period of time.

I don’t think it was a short period of time, between all of the failures to actually get a cell culture system and to show that we had a functional clone. From 1989, when the virus sequence was reported, to 2011, when the first antiviral compounds were produced, was 22 years.

And then, that initial generation of treatment compounds was not the greatest, and they were combined with the treatment that we were trying to get rid of – interferon – that made people quite ill and didn’t always cure them. They only had about a 50% cure rate.

It was 2014 when the interferon-free cocktails came about. And that was really amazing.

There were people who thought, “You are not going to be able to develop a drug cocktail that can eliminate this virus.” It was presumptuous to think that one could, but it was accomplished by biotech and the pharmaceutical industry. So it is really quite a success story, but I wish it could have been faster.

Over the last 50 years, researchers have identified five types of viruses that cause different forms of viral hepatitis. Each virus has its own mode of transmission and health impacts. Scientists around the world have worked to develop treatments and vaccines.
 

What are the current challenges in combating hepatitis C?

One thing that was a little sobering and disappointing for me was that when these medical advances are made and shown to be efficacious, it is not possible to get these drugs to everybody who needs them and successfully treat them. It’s a lot more complicated, in part because of the economics – how much the companies decide to charge for the drugs.

Also, it’s difficult to identify people who are infected with hepatitis C, because it’s often asymptomatic. Even when identified, getting people into treatment is challenging given differences in public health capabilities which vary at the local, national, and global levels. So we have wonderful drugs that can basically cure anybody, but I think we still could use a vaccine for hepatitis C.
 

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, you won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the hepatitis C virus. What was that experience like?

It was December 2020, and we were working on SARS-CoV-2 in the peak of the pandemic in New York City. My spouse and the dogs were off at our house in Connecticut, and I was living in the apartment in Manhattan. And I got this call at 4:30 in the morning. It was pretty shocking.

The pandemic made people more aware of what a highly infectious, disease-causing virus can do to our world. It encouraged the rapid dissemination of research results and more open publications. It also really made us appreciate how the same virus does different things depending upon who’s infected: In the case of COVID-19, it’s not good to be old, for example.
 

After many decades working with viruses, what would you say is the next frontier in virology?

There’s a lot that we don’t understand about these viruses. The more we study them, the more we understand about ourselves, our cells and our antiviral defense systems.

And there’s also great power in terms of being able to diagnose new viruses. The sequencing technology, the functional genomics technologies, all of those things, when applied to virology, give us a much richer picture of how these viruses interact with cells. I think it’s a golden age.

The five known types of viral hepatitis afflict hundreds of millions of people around the world, causing both acute and chronic liver diseases. Among them, types B and C are the most severe, and diagnosis often remains a challenge.
 

You have been working with flaviviruses (dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and hepatitis C) for many decades. Zika and dengue pose an ongoing threat worldwide and, in particular, Latin America. Based on the successful example of hepatitis C, what can scientific research do to mitigate the impact of these viruses?

For viruses like Zika, developing a vaccine is probably going to be fairly straightforward – except that since Zika is so transient, it makes it hard to prove that your vaccine works. You would have to do a human challenge study, in which volunteers are deliberately exposed to an infection in a safe way with health-care support.

For dengue, it’s much more difficult, because there are four different serotypes – different versions of the same virus – and infection with one serotype can put you at increased risk of more severe disease if you get infected with a second serotype. Eliciting a balanced response that would protect you against all four dengue serotypes is the holy grail of trying to develop a dengue vaccine.

People are using various approaches to accomplish that. The classic one is to take live attenuated versions – weakened forms of viruses that have been modified so they can’t cause severe illness but can still stimulate the immune system – of each of the four serotypes and mix them together. Another is to make chimeric viruses: a combination of genetic material from different viruses, resulting in new viruses that have features of each of the four dengue serotypes, engineered into the backbone of the yellow fever vaccine. But this hasn’t worked as well as people have hoped. I think the cocktail of live, attenuated dengue variants is probably the most advanced approach. But I would guess that given the success of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, the mRNA approach will also be tried out.

These diseases are not going to go away. You can’t eradicate every mosquito. And you can’t really immunize every susceptible vertebrate host. So occasionally there’s going to be spillover into the human population. We need to keep working on these because they are big problems.
 

You began your career at the California Institute of Technology studying RNA viruses, such as the mosquito-borne Sindbis virus, and then flaviviruses that cause encephalitis, polyarthritis, yellow fever, and dengue fever. Later on, you also studied hepatitis C virus. Is there any advantage for virologists in changing the viruses they study throughout their careers?

They’re all interesting, right? And they are all different in their own ways. I say that my career has been a downward spiral of tackling increasingly intricate viruses. Initially, the alphaviruses – a viral family that includes chikungunya virus, for example – were easy. The classical flaviviruses – like yellow fever, dengue fever, West Nile viruses, and Zika virus, among others – were a little more difficult, but the hepatitis C virus was impossible for 15 years, until we, and others, finally achieved a complete replication system in the laboratory.

We coexist daily with viruses, but the pandemic may have given people the idea that all these microorganisms are invariably life-threatening.

We have to treat them with respect. We’ve seen what can happen with the emergence of a novel coronavirus that can spread during an asymptomatic phase of infection. You can’t be prepared for everything, but in some respects our response was a lot slower and less effective than it could have been.

If there’s anything that we’ve learned over the last 10 years with the new nucleic acid sequencing technologies, it’s that our past view of the virosphere was very narrow. And if you really look at what’s out there, the estimated virus diversity is a staggering number, like 1,031 types. Although most of them are not pathogenic to humans, some are. We have to take this threat seriously.
 

Is science prepared?

I think so, but there has to be an investment, a societal investment. And that investment has to not only be an investment in infrastructure that can react quickly to something new, but also to establish a repository of protective antibodies and small molecules against viruses that we know could be future threats.

Often, these things go in cycles. There’s a disaster, like the COVID-19 pandemic, people are changed by the experience, but then they think “Oh, well, the virus has faded into the background, the threat is over.” And that’s just not the case. We need a more sustained plan rather than a reactive stance. And that’s hard to do when resources and money are limited.
 

What is the effect of science illiteracy, conspiracy theories, and lack of science information on the battle against viruses?

These are huge issues, and I don’t know the best way to combat them and educate people. Any combative, confrontational kind of response – it’s just not going to work. People will get more resolute in their entrenched beliefs and not hear or believe compelling evidence to the contrary.

It’s frustrating. I think that we have amazing tools and the power to make really significant advances to help people. It is more than a little discouraging for scientists when there’s a substantial fraction of people who don’t believe in things that are well-supported by facts.

It’s in large part an educational problem. I think we don’t put enough money into education, particularly early education. A lot of people don’t understand how much of what we take for granted today is underpinned by science. All this technology – good, bad or ugly – is all science.
 

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine on Oct. 30, 2023. Knowable Magazine is an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews, a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. Sign up for Knowable Magazine’s newsletter.

A, B, C, D, E: It’s a short, menacing alphabet representing the five types of virus causing viral hepatitis, a sickness afflicting some 400 million people around the world today.

Hepatitis viruses are a set of very different pathogens that kill 1.4 million people annually and infect more than HIV and the malaria pathogen do combined. Most of the deaths are from cirrhosis of the liver or hepatic cancer due to chronic infections with hepatitis viruses B or C, picked up through contact with contaminated blood.

Hepatitis B was the first of the five to be discovered, in the 1960s, by biochemist Baruch S. Blumberg, MD. Hepatitis A, which is most commonly spread through contaminated food and water, was next, discovered in 1973 by researchers Stephen Mark Feinstone, MD, Albert Kapikian, MD, and Robert Purcell, MD.

Screening tests for those two types of viruses paved the way to discovering a third. In the 1970s, hematologist Harvey J. Alter, MD, examined unexplained cases of hepatitis in patients after blood transfusions and found that only 25% of such cases were caused by the hepatitis B virus, and none were linked to the hepatitis A virus. The rest were caused by an unidentified transmissible agent that could persist in the body as a chronic infection and lead to liver cirrhosis and liver cancer.

The agent behind this disease, named non-A, non-B hepatitis, remained a mystery for a decade until Michael Houghton, PhD, a microbiologist working at the biotechnology company Chiron Corporation, and his team sequenced the agent’s genome in 1989 after years of intensive investigation. They identified it as a novel virus of the family to which yellow fever virus belongs: the flaviviruses, a group of RNA viruses often transmitted through the bite of infected arthropods.

But there was more to the story. Scientists needed to show that this new virus could, indeed, cause hepatitis C on its own – a feat achieved in 1997, when Charles M. Rice, PhD, then a virologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and others succeeded in creating a form of the virus in the lab that could replicate in the only animal model for hepatitis C, the chimpanzee. When they injected the virus into the liver of chimpanzees, it triggered clinical hepatitis, demonstrating the direct connection between hepatitis C and non-A, non-B hepatitis.

The findings led to lifesaving hepatitis C tests to avert infections through transfusions with contaminated blood, as well as for the development of effective antiviral medications to treat the disease. In 2020, in the thick of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Dr. Alter, Dr. Houghton, and Dr. Rice received a Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on identifying the virus.

To learn more about hepatitis C history and the treatment and prevention challenges that remain, Knowable Magazine spoke with Dr. Rice, now at the Rockefeller University, at the 72nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in Germany in June 2023. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What were the challenges at the time you began your research on hepatitis C?

The realization that an agent was behind non-A, non-B hepatitis had initiated a virus hunt to try to figure out what the causative agent was. Dr. Houghton and his group at Chiron won that race and reported the partial sequence of the virus in 1989 in Science.

It was an interesting kind of a dilemma for me as an early-stage assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, where I’d been working on yellow fever. All of a sudden, we had this new human virus that dropped into our laps and joined the flavivirus family; we had to decide if we were going to shift some of our attention to work on this virus. Initially, people in the viral hepatitis field invited us to meetings, but because we were doing work on the related virus, yellow fever, not because we were considered majors player in the field.

The main challenge was that we could not grow the virus in cell culture. And the only experimental model was the chimpanzee, so it was really difficult for laboratories to study this virus.

There were two major goals. One was to establish a cell culture system where you could replicate the virus and study it. And the other was try to create a system where we could do genetics on the virus. It was shown to be an RNA virus, and the collection of tools available for modifying RNA at that time, in the early 1990s, was not the same as it was for DNA. Now that’s changed to some extent, with modern editing technologies.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from this hepatitis C story, it’s that persistence pays off.
 

This journey started with an unknown virus and ended up with treatment in a relatively short period of time.

I don’t think it was a short period of time, between all of the failures to actually get a cell culture system and to show that we had a functional clone. From 1989, when the virus sequence was reported, to 2011, when the first antiviral compounds were produced, was 22 years.

And then, that initial generation of treatment compounds was not the greatest, and they were combined with the treatment that we were trying to get rid of – interferon – that made people quite ill and didn’t always cure them. They only had about a 50% cure rate.

It was 2014 when the interferon-free cocktails came about. And that was really amazing.

There were people who thought, “You are not going to be able to develop a drug cocktail that can eliminate this virus.” It was presumptuous to think that one could, but it was accomplished by biotech and the pharmaceutical industry. So it is really quite a success story, but I wish it could have been faster.

Over the last 50 years, researchers have identified five types of viruses that cause different forms of viral hepatitis. Each virus has its own mode of transmission and health impacts. Scientists around the world have worked to develop treatments and vaccines.
 

What are the current challenges in combating hepatitis C?

One thing that was a little sobering and disappointing for me was that when these medical advances are made and shown to be efficacious, it is not possible to get these drugs to everybody who needs them and successfully treat them. It’s a lot more complicated, in part because of the economics – how much the companies decide to charge for the drugs.

Also, it’s difficult to identify people who are infected with hepatitis C, because it’s often asymptomatic. Even when identified, getting people into treatment is challenging given differences in public health capabilities which vary at the local, national, and global levels. So we have wonderful drugs that can basically cure anybody, but I think we still could use a vaccine for hepatitis C.
 

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, you won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the hepatitis C virus. What was that experience like?

It was December 2020, and we were working on SARS-CoV-2 in the peak of the pandemic in New York City. My spouse and the dogs were off at our house in Connecticut, and I was living in the apartment in Manhattan. And I got this call at 4:30 in the morning. It was pretty shocking.

The pandemic made people more aware of what a highly infectious, disease-causing virus can do to our world. It encouraged the rapid dissemination of research results and more open publications. It also really made us appreciate how the same virus does different things depending upon who’s infected: In the case of COVID-19, it’s not good to be old, for example.
 

After many decades working with viruses, what would you say is the next frontier in virology?

There’s a lot that we don’t understand about these viruses. The more we study them, the more we understand about ourselves, our cells and our antiviral defense systems.

And there’s also great power in terms of being able to diagnose new viruses. The sequencing technology, the functional genomics technologies, all of those things, when applied to virology, give us a much richer picture of how these viruses interact with cells. I think it’s a golden age.

The five known types of viral hepatitis afflict hundreds of millions of people around the world, causing both acute and chronic liver diseases. Among them, types B and C are the most severe, and diagnosis often remains a challenge.
 

You have been working with flaviviruses (dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and hepatitis C) for many decades. Zika and dengue pose an ongoing threat worldwide and, in particular, Latin America. Based on the successful example of hepatitis C, what can scientific research do to mitigate the impact of these viruses?

For viruses like Zika, developing a vaccine is probably going to be fairly straightforward – except that since Zika is so transient, it makes it hard to prove that your vaccine works. You would have to do a human challenge study, in which volunteers are deliberately exposed to an infection in a safe way with health-care support.

For dengue, it’s much more difficult, because there are four different serotypes – different versions of the same virus – and infection with one serotype can put you at increased risk of more severe disease if you get infected with a second serotype. Eliciting a balanced response that would protect you against all four dengue serotypes is the holy grail of trying to develop a dengue vaccine.

People are using various approaches to accomplish that. The classic one is to take live attenuated versions – weakened forms of viruses that have been modified so they can’t cause severe illness but can still stimulate the immune system – of each of the four serotypes and mix them together. Another is to make chimeric viruses: a combination of genetic material from different viruses, resulting in new viruses that have features of each of the four dengue serotypes, engineered into the backbone of the yellow fever vaccine. But this hasn’t worked as well as people have hoped. I think the cocktail of live, attenuated dengue variants is probably the most advanced approach. But I would guess that given the success of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, the mRNA approach will also be tried out.

These diseases are not going to go away. You can’t eradicate every mosquito. And you can’t really immunize every susceptible vertebrate host. So occasionally there’s going to be spillover into the human population. We need to keep working on these because they are big problems.
 

You began your career at the California Institute of Technology studying RNA viruses, such as the mosquito-borne Sindbis virus, and then flaviviruses that cause encephalitis, polyarthritis, yellow fever, and dengue fever. Later on, you also studied hepatitis C virus. Is there any advantage for virologists in changing the viruses they study throughout their careers?

They’re all interesting, right? And they are all different in their own ways. I say that my career has been a downward spiral of tackling increasingly intricate viruses. Initially, the alphaviruses – a viral family that includes chikungunya virus, for example – were easy. The classical flaviviruses – like yellow fever, dengue fever, West Nile viruses, and Zika virus, among others – were a little more difficult, but the hepatitis C virus was impossible for 15 years, until we, and others, finally achieved a complete replication system in the laboratory.

We coexist daily with viruses, but the pandemic may have given people the idea that all these microorganisms are invariably life-threatening.

We have to treat them with respect. We’ve seen what can happen with the emergence of a novel coronavirus that can spread during an asymptomatic phase of infection. You can’t be prepared for everything, but in some respects our response was a lot slower and less effective than it could have been.

If there’s anything that we’ve learned over the last 10 years with the new nucleic acid sequencing technologies, it’s that our past view of the virosphere was very narrow. And if you really look at what’s out there, the estimated virus diversity is a staggering number, like 1,031 types. Although most of them are not pathogenic to humans, some are. We have to take this threat seriously.
 

Is science prepared?

I think so, but there has to be an investment, a societal investment. And that investment has to not only be an investment in infrastructure that can react quickly to something new, but also to establish a repository of protective antibodies and small molecules against viruses that we know could be future threats.

Often, these things go in cycles. There’s a disaster, like the COVID-19 pandemic, people are changed by the experience, but then they think “Oh, well, the virus has faded into the background, the threat is over.” And that’s just not the case. We need a more sustained plan rather than a reactive stance. And that’s hard to do when resources and money are limited.
 

What is the effect of science illiteracy, conspiracy theories, and lack of science information on the battle against viruses?

These are huge issues, and I don’t know the best way to combat them and educate people. Any combative, confrontational kind of response – it’s just not going to work. People will get more resolute in their entrenched beliefs and not hear or believe compelling evidence to the contrary.

It’s frustrating. I think that we have amazing tools and the power to make really significant advances to help people. It is more than a little discouraging for scientists when there’s a substantial fraction of people who don’t believe in things that are well-supported by facts.

It’s in large part an educational problem. I think we don’t put enough money into education, particularly early education. A lot of people don’t understand how much of what we take for granted today is underpinned by science. All this technology – good, bad or ugly – is all science.
 

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine on Oct. 30, 2023. Knowable Magazine is an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews, a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. Sign up for Knowable Magazine’s newsletter.

A, B, C, D, E: It’s a short, menacing alphabet representing the five types of virus causing viral hepatitis, a sickness afflicting some 400 million people around the world today.

Hepatitis viruses are a set of very different pathogens that kill 1.4 million people annually and infect more than HIV and the malaria pathogen do combined. Most of the deaths are from cirrhosis of the liver or hepatic cancer due to chronic infections with hepatitis viruses B or C, picked up through contact with contaminated blood.

Hepatitis B was the first of the five to be discovered, in the 1960s, by biochemist Baruch S. Blumberg, MD. Hepatitis A, which is most commonly spread through contaminated food and water, was next, discovered in 1973 by researchers Stephen Mark Feinstone, MD, Albert Kapikian, MD, and Robert Purcell, MD.

Screening tests for those two types of viruses paved the way to discovering a third. In the 1970s, hematologist Harvey J. Alter, MD, examined unexplained cases of hepatitis in patients after blood transfusions and found that only 25% of such cases were caused by the hepatitis B virus, and none were linked to the hepatitis A virus. The rest were caused by an unidentified transmissible agent that could persist in the body as a chronic infection and lead to liver cirrhosis and liver cancer.

The agent behind this disease, named non-A, non-B hepatitis, remained a mystery for a decade until Michael Houghton, PhD, a microbiologist working at the biotechnology company Chiron Corporation, and his team sequenced the agent’s genome in 1989 after years of intensive investigation. They identified it as a novel virus of the family to which yellow fever virus belongs: the flaviviruses, a group of RNA viruses often transmitted through the bite of infected arthropods.

But there was more to the story. Scientists needed to show that this new virus could, indeed, cause hepatitis C on its own – a feat achieved in 1997, when Charles M. Rice, PhD, then a virologist at Washington University in St. Louis, and others succeeded in creating a form of the virus in the lab that could replicate in the only animal model for hepatitis C, the chimpanzee. When they injected the virus into the liver of chimpanzees, it triggered clinical hepatitis, demonstrating the direct connection between hepatitis C and non-A, non-B hepatitis.

The findings led to lifesaving hepatitis C tests to avert infections through transfusions with contaminated blood, as well as for the development of effective antiviral medications to treat the disease. In 2020, in the thick of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Dr. Alter, Dr. Houghton, and Dr. Rice received a Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on identifying the virus.

To learn more about hepatitis C history and the treatment and prevention challenges that remain, Knowable Magazine spoke with Dr. Rice, now at the Rockefeller University, at the 72nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in Germany in June 2023. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
 

What were the challenges at the time you began your research on hepatitis C?

The realization that an agent was behind non-A, non-B hepatitis had initiated a virus hunt to try to figure out what the causative agent was. Dr. Houghton and his group at Chiron won that race and reported the partial sequence of the virus in 1989 in Science.

It was an interesting kind of a dilemma for me as an early-stage assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, where I’d been working on yellow fever. All of a sudden, we had this new human virus that dropped into our laps and joined the flavivirus family; we had to decide if we were going to shift some of our attention to work on this virus. Initially, people in the viral hepatitis field invited us to meetings, but because we were doing work on the related virus, yellow fever, not because we were considered majors player in the field.

The main challenge was that we could not grow the virus in cell culture. And the only experimental model was the chimpanzee, so it was really difficult for laboratories to study this virus.

There were two major goals. One was to establish a cell culture system where you could replicate the virus and study it. And the other was try to create a system where we could do genetics on the virus. It was shown to be an RNA virus, and the collection of tools available for modifying RNA at that time, in the early 1990s, was not the same as it was for DNA. Now that’s changed to some extent, with modern editing technologies.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from this hepatitis C story, it’s that persistence pays off.
 

This journey started with an unknown virus and ended up with treatment in a relatively short period of time.

I don’t think it was a short period of time, between all of the failures to actually get a cell culture system and to show that we had a functional clone. From 1989, when the virus sequence was reported, to 2011, when the first antiviral compounds were produced, was 22 years.

And then, that initial generation of treatment compounds was not the greatest, and they were combined with the treatment that we were trying to get rid of – interferon – that made people quite ill and didn’t always cure them. They only had about a 50% cure rate.

It was 2014 when the interferon-free cocktails came about. And that was really amazing.

There were people who thought, “You are not going to be able to develop a drug cocktail that can eliminate this virus.” It was presumptuous to think that one could, but it was accomplished by biotech and the pharmaceutical industry. So it is really quite a success story, but I wish it could have been faster.

Over the last 50 years, researchers have identified five types of viruses that cause different forms of viral hepatitis. Each virus has its own mode of transmission and health impacts. Scientists around the world have worked to develop treatments and vaccines.
 

What are the current challenges in combating hepatitis C?

One thing that was a little sobering and disappointing for me was that when these medical advances are made and shown to be efficacious, it is not possible to get these drugs to everybody who needs them and successfully treat them. It’s a lot more complicated, in part because of the economics – how much the companies decide to charge for the drugs.

Also, it’s difficult to identify people who are infected with hepatitis C, because it’s often asymptomatic. Even when identified, getting people into treatment is challenging given differences in public health capabilities which vary at the local, national, and global levels. So we have wonderful drugs that can basically cure anybody, but I think we still could use a vaccine for hepatitis C.
 

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, you won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the hepatitis C virus. What was that experience like?

It was December 2020, and we were working on SARS-CoV-2 in the peak of the pandemic in New York City. My spouse and the dogs were off at our house in Connecticut, and I was living in the apartment in Manhattan. And I got this call at 4:30 in the morning. It was pretty shocking.

The pandemic made people more aware of what a highly infectious, disease-causing virus can do to our world. It encouraged the rapid dissemination of research results and more open publications. It also really made us appreciate how the same virus does different things depending upon who’s infected: In the case of COVID-19, it’s not good to be old, for example.
 

After many decades working with viruses, what would you say is the next frontier in virology?

There’s a lot that we don’t understand about these viruses. The more we study them, the more we understand about ourselves, our cells and our antiviral defense systems.

And there’s also great power in terms of being able to diagnose new viruses. The sequencing technology, the functional genomics technologies, all of those things, when applied to virology, give us a much richer picture of how these viruses interact with cells. I think it’s a golden age.

The five known types of viral hepatitis afflict hundreds of millions of people around the world, causing both acute and chronic liver diseases. Among them, types B and C are the most severe, and diagnosis often remains a challenge.
 

You have been working with flaviviruses (dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and hepatitis C) for many decades. Zika and dengue pose an ongoing threat worldwide and, in particular, Latin America. Based on the successful example of hepatitis C, what can scientific research do to mitigate the impact of these viruses?

For viruses like Zika, developing a vaccine is probably going to be fairly straightforward – except that since Zika is so transient, it makes it hard to prove that your vaccine works. You would have to do a human challenge study, in which volunteers are deliberately exposed to an infection in a safe way with health-care support.

For dengue, it’s much more difficult, because there are four different serotypes – different versions of the same virus – and infection with one serotype can put you at increased risk of more severe disease if you get infected with a second serotype. Eliciting a balanced response that would protect you against all four dengue serotypes is the holy grail of trying to develop a dengue vaccine.

People are using various approaches to accomplish that. The classic one is to take live attenuated versions – weakened forms of viruses that have been modified so they can’t cause severe illness but can still stimulate the immune system – of each of the four serotypes and mix them together. Another is to make chimeric viruses: a combination of genetic material from different viruses, resulting in new viruses that have features of each of the four dengue serotypes, engineered into the backbone of the yellow fever vaccine. But this hasn’t worked as well as people have hoped. I think the cocktail of live, attenuated dengue variants is probably the most advanced approach. But I would guess that given the success of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, the mRNA approach will also be tried out.

These diseases are not going to go away. You can’t eradicate every mosquito. And you can’t really immunize every susceptible vertebrate host. So occasionally there’s going to be spillover into the human population. We need to keep working on these because they are big problems.
 

You began your career at the California Institute of Technology studying RNA viruses, such as the mosquito-borne Sindbis virus, and then flaviviruses that cause encephalitis, polyarthritis, yellow fever, and dengue fever. Later on, you also studied hepatitis C virus. Is there any advantage for virologists in changing the viruses they study throughout their careers?

They’re all interesting, right? And they are all different in their own ways. I say that my career has been a downward spiral of tackling increasingly intricate viruses. Initially, the alphaviruses – a viral family that includes chikungunya virus, for example – were easy. The classical flaviviruses – like yellow fever, dengue fever, West Nile viruses, and Zika virus, among others – were a little more difficult, but the hepatitis C virus was impossible for 15 years, until we, and others, finally achieved a complete replication system in the laboratory.

We coexist daily with viruses, but the pandemic may have given people the idea that all these microorganisms are invariably life-threatening.

We have to treat them with respect. We’ve seen what can happen with the emergence of a novel coronavirus that can spread during an asymptomatic phase of infection. You can’t be prepared for everything, but in some respects our response was a lot slower and less effective than it could have been.

If there’s anything that we’ve learned over the last 10 years with the new nucleic acid sequencing technologies, it’s that our past view of the virosphere was very narrow. And if you really look at what’s out there, the estimated virus diversity is a staggering number, like 1,031 types. Although most of them are not pathogenic to humans, some are. We have to take this threat seriously.
 

Is science prepared?

I think so, but there has to be an investment, a societal investment. And that investment has to not only be an investment in infrastructure that can react quickly to something new, but also to establish a repository of protective antibodies and small molecules against viruses that we know could be future threats.

Often, these things go in cycles. There’s a disaster, like the COVID-19 pandemic, people are changed by the experience, but then they think “Oh, well, the virus has faded into the background, the threat is over.” And that’s just not the case. We need a more sustained plan rather than a reactive stance. And that’s hard to do when resources and money are limited.
 

What is the effect of science illiteracy, conspiracy theories, and lack of science information on the battle against viruses?

These are huge issues, and I don’t know the best way to combat them and educate people. Any combative, confrontational kind of response – it’s just not going to work. People will get more resolute in their entrenched beliefs and not hear or believe compelling evidence to the contrary.

It’s frustrating. I think that we have amazing tools and the power to make really significant advances to help people. It is more than a little discouraging for scientists when there’s a substantial fraction of people who don’t believe in things that are well-supported by facts.

It’s in large part an educational problem. I think we don’t put enough money into education, particularly early education. A lot of people don’t understand how much of what we take for granted today is underpinned by science. All this technology – good, bad or ugly – is all science.
 

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine on Oct. 30, 2023. Knowable Magazine is an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews, a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. Sign up for Knowable Magazine’s newsletter.

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Veronica Brady and her team at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, sat down with 37 people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to ask them what that felt like.

“The results were really eye-opening and sad,” says Brady, PhD, RN, from the Cizik School of Nursing with UTHealth, Houston.

Many of the people Dr. Brady and her team spoke with were diagnosed through routine or random testing. They ranged in age from 21 years to 65 and said they did not know how they had been infected and felt shocked, freaked out, scared, and in a state of disbelief.

Their conversations about being diagnosed with HIV, presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care in New Orleans, also described how symptoms of the disease or side effects from treatment can have a huge impact on the daily lives of those affected.

Jesse Milan Jr., president of AIDS United, an HIV advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., says he recognizes all of these feelings from his own experience with HIV after being diagnosed more than 40 years ago.

“All of those have come up over the years,” he says. “They are all relevant and important at different times.”

For Mr. Milan, less was known about the virus at the time of his diagnosis, and he watched loved ones die. He lived to see the introduction of antiretroviral therapies and receive treatment when his partner and many of his friends did not.
 

Effective treatments

There is a marked difference between the reaction of people diagnosed with HIV years ago and those diagnosed more recently, Dr. Brady explains. Those diagnosed before much was known about the virus and before there were effective treatments were more frightened, she says, whereas people hearing the news recently are much less worried and understand that if they take their medication, they will be fine.

Still, Mr. Milan says when he talks to people diagnosed now, they seem to experience more shame and embarrassment than before. Because it is long known how to prevent HIV infection, they often worry what people will think if they disclose their status. “It makes things harder for people diagnosed today,” says Mr. Milan. “There is a different level of embarrassment tinged with, ‘Why was I so stupid?’ ”

Diagnosis can also be hard on health care professionals, says Dr. Brady. “You never want to tell anyone they’re sick with a chronic disease, especially younger people,” she adds. “You know you’re adding a burden to someone’s life.”

Symptoms and side effects of treatment also had an important impact on the people in this report, with most aspects of their lives affected, including work, relationships, mood, and daily activities.

Clinicians should be supportive and spend some time sitting with patients as they come to terms with the diagnosis and its implications. They should help them understand what to expect and talk about how – or whether – to talk about their status with family and friends. “You need to show you care about the person and that they are not alone,” Dr. Brady says.

And most of all, clinicians need to explain that patients can live a long and healthy life and go on to become whoever they want to be. “Twenty years ago, we wouldn’t have as hopeful a message as we do now,” she says.

Hope is the most important thing for doctors and nurses to communicate to their patients. “There are medications available, and it will be okay. You don’t have to die,” Mr. Milan says. “That’s the core message that everyone needs to hear, whether they were diagnosed 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Veronica Brady and her team at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, sat down with 37 people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to ask them what that felt like.

“The results were really eye-opening and sad,” says Brady, PhD, RN, from the Cizik School of Nursing with UTHealth, Houston.

Many of the people Dr. Brady and her team spoke with were diagnosed through routine or random testing. They ranged in age from 21 years to 65 and said they did not know how they had been infected and felt shocked, freaked out, scared, and in a state of disbelief.

Their conversations about being diagnosed with HIV, presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care in New Orleans, also described how symptoms of the disease or side effects from treatment can have a huge impact on the daily lives of those affected.

Jesse Milan Jr., president of AIDS United, an HIV advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., says he recognizes all of these feelings from his own experience with HIV after being diagnosed more than 40 years ago.

“All of those have come up over the years,” he says. “They are all relevant and important at different times.”

For Mr. Milan, less was known about the virus at the time of his diagnosis, and he watched loved ones die. He lived to see the introduction of antiretroviral therapies and receive treatment when his partner and many of his friends did not.
 

Effective treatments

There is a marked difference between the reaction of people diagnosed with HIV years ago and those diagnosed more recently, Dr. Brady explains. Those diagnosed before much was known about the virus and before there were effective treatments were more frightened, she says, whereas people hearing the news recently are much less worried and understand that if they take their medication, they will be fine.

Still, Mr. Milan says when he talks to people diagnosed now, they seem to experience more shame and embarrassment than before. Because it is long known how to prevent HIV infection, they often worry what people will think if they disclose their status. “It makes things harder for people diagnosed today,” says Mr. Milan. “There is a different level of embarrassment tinged with, ‘Why was I so stupid?’ ”

Diagnosis can also be hard on health care professionals, says Dr. Brady. “You never want to tell anyone they’re sick with a chronic disease, especially younger people,” she adds. “You know you’re adding a burden to someone’s life.”

Symptoms and side effects of treatment also had an important impact on the people in this report, with most aspects of their lives affected, including work, relationships, mood, and daily activities.

Clinicians should be supportive and spend some time sitting with patients as they come to terms with the diagnosis and its implications. They should help them understand what to expect and talk about how – or whether – to talk about their status with family and friends. “You need to show you care about the person and that they are not alone,” Dr. Brady says.

And most of all, clinicians need to explain that patients can live a long and healthy life and go on to become whoever they want to be. “Twenty years ago, we wouldn’t have as hopeful a message as we do now,” she says.

Hope is the most important thing for doctors and nurses to communicate to their patients. “There are medications available, and it will be okay. You don’t have to die,” Mr. Milan says. “That’s the core message that everyone needs to hear, whether they were diagnosed 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Veronica Brady and her team at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, sat down with 37 people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to ask them what that felt like.

“The results were really eye-opening and sad,” says Brady, PhD, RN, from the Cizik School of Nursing with UTHealth, Houston.

Many of the people Dr. Brady and her team spoke with were diagnosed through routine or random testing. They ranged in age from 21 years to 65 and said they did not know how they had been infected and felt shocked, freaked out, scared, and in a state of disbelief.

Their conversations about being diagnosed with HIV, presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care in New Orleans, also described how symptoms of the disease or side effects from treatment can have a huge impact on the daily lives of those affected.

Jesse Milan Jr., president of AIDS United, an HIV advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., says he recognizes all of these feelings from his own experience with HIV after being diagnosed more than 40 years ago.

“All of those have come up over the years,” he says. “They are all relevant and important at different times.”

For Mr. Milan, less was known about the virus at the time of his diagnosis, and he watched loved ones die. He lived to see the introduction of antiretroviral therapies and receive treatment when his partner and many of his friends did not.
 

Effective treatments

There is a marked difference between the reaction of people diagnosed with HIV years ago and those diagnosed more recently, Dr. Brady explains. Those diagnosed before much was known about the virus and before there were effective treatments were more frightened, she says, whereas people hearing the news recently are much less worried and understand that if they take their medication, they will be fine.

Still, Mr. Milan says when he talks to people diagnosed now, they seem to experience more shame and embarrassment than before. Because it is long known how to prevent HIV infection, they often worry what people will think if they disclose their status. “It makes things harder for people diagnosed today,” says Mr. Milan. “There is a different level of embarrassment tinged with, ‘Why was I so stupid?’ ”

Diagnosis can also be hard on health care professionals, says Dr. Brady. “You never want to tell anyone they’re sick with a chronic disease, especially younger people,” she adds. “You know you’re adding a burden to someone’s life.”

Symptoms and side effects of treatment also had an important impact on the people in this report, with most aspects of their lives affected, including work, relationships, mood, and daily activities.

Clinicians should be supportive and spend some time sitting with patients as they come to terms with the diagnosis and its implications. They should help them understand what to expect and talk about how – or whether – to talk about their status with family and friends. “You need to show you care about the person and that they are not alone,” Dr. Brady says.

And most of all, clinicians need to explain that patients can live a long and healthy life and go on to become whoever they want to be. “Twenty years ago, we wouldn’t have as hopeful a message as we do now,” she says.

Hope is the most important thing for doctors and nurses to communicate to their patients. “There are medications available, and it will be okay. You don’t have to die,” Mr. Milan says. “That’s the core message that everyone needs to hear, whether they were diagnosed 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

People infected multiple times with COVID-19 are more likely to develop long COVID, and most never fully recover from the condition. Those are two of the most striking findings of a comprehensive new research study of 138,000 veterans.

Lead researcher Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, spoke with this news organization about his team’s findings, what we know – and don’t – about long COVID, and what it means for physicians treating patients with the condition.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Your research concluded that for those infected early in the pandemic, some long COVID symptoms declined over 2 years, but some did not. You have also concluded that long COVID is a chronic disease. Why?

We’ve been in this journey a little bit more than three and a half years. Some patients do experience some recovery. But that’s not the norm. Most people do not really fully recover. The health trajectory for people with long COVID is really very heterogeneous. There is no one-size-fits-all. There’s really no one line that I could give you that could cover all your patients. But it is very, very, very clear that a bunch of them experienced long COVID for sure; that’s really happening.

It happened in the pre-Delta era and in the Delta era, and with Omicron subvariants, even now. There are people who think, “This is a nothing-burger anymore,” or “It’s not an issue anymore.” It’s still happening with the current variants. Vaccines do reduce risk for long COVID, but do not completely eliminate the risk for long COVID.

You work with patients with long COVID in the clinic and also analyze data from thousands more. If long COVID does not go away, what should doctors look for in everyday practice that will help them recognize and help patients with long COVID?

Long COVID is not uncommon. We see it in the clinic in large numbers. Whatever clinic you’re running – if you’re running a cardiology clinic, or a nephrology clinic, or diabetes, or primary care – probably some of your people have it. You may not know about it. They may not tell you about it. You may not recognize it.

Not all long COVID is the same, and that’s really what makes it complex and makes it really hard to deal with in the clinic. But that’s the reality that we’re all dealing with. And it’s multisystemic; it’s not like it affects the heart only, the brain only, or the autonomic nervous system only. It does not behave in the same way in different individuals – they may have different manifestations, various health trajectories, and different outcomes. It’s important for doctors to get up to speed on long COVID as a multisystem illness.

Management at this point is really managing the symptoms. We don’t have a treatment for it; we don’t have a cure for it.

Some patients experience what you’ve described as partial recovery. What does that look like?

Some individuals do experience some recovery over time, but for most individuals, the recovery is long and arduous. Long COVID can last with them for many years. Some people may come back to the clinic and say, “I’m doing better,” but if you really flesh it out and dig deeper, they didn’t do better; they adjusted to a new baseline. They used to walk the dog three to four blocks, and now they walk the dog only half a block. They used to do an activity with their partner every Saturday or Sunday, and now they do half of that.

If you’re a physician, a primary care provider, or any other provider who is dealing with a patient with long COVID, know that this is really happening. It can happen even in vaccinated individuals. The presentation is heterogeneous. Some people may present to you with and say. “Well, before I had COVID I was mentally sharp and now having I’m having difficulty with memory, etc.” It can sometimes present as fatigue or postexertional malaise.

In some instances, it can present as sleep problems. It can present as what we call postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Those people get a significant increase in heart rate with postural changes.

What the most important thing we can we learn from the emergence of long COVID?

This whole thing taught us that infections can cause chronic disease. That’s really the No. 1 lesson that I take from this pandemic – that infections can cause chronic disease.

Looking at only acute illness from COVID is really only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip of the iceberg lies this hidden toll of disease that we don’t really talk about that much.

This pandemic shone a very, very good light on the idea that there is really an intimate connection between infections and chronic disease. It was really hardwired into our medical training as doctors that most infections, when people get over the hump of the acute phase of the disease, it’s all behind them. I think long COVID has humbled us in many, many ways, but chief among those is the realization – the stark realization – that infections can cause chronic disease.

That’s really going back to your [first] question: What does it mean that some people are not recovering? They actually have chronic illness. I’m hoping that we will find a treatment, that we’ll start finding things that would help them get back to baseline. But at this point in time, what we’re dealing with is people with chronic illness or chronic disease that may continue to affect them for many years to come in the absence of a treatment or a cure.

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

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

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

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

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

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

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

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

All infants and children perinatally exposed to the hepatitis C virus (HCV) should be tested and, if necessary, treated, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In utero–exposed infants should be tested at 2-6 months of life, much earlier than the current strategy of testing at 18 months.

HCV infection, which can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatic cancer, and transplant, will develop in 6%-7% of all perinatally exposed infants and children. Curative therapy with direct-acting antivirals can be administered starting at age 3, the CDC noted in Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (MMWR).

About 70% of children 18 months and older are not being tested with the current strategy of anti-HCV testing.

This current MMWR report supplements the 2020 CDC recommendations for adult HCV screening, which includes universal screening among pregnant persons during each pregnancy.
 

The new recommendations

• Perinatally exposed infants should receive a nucleic acid amplification test for HCV RNA at 2-6 months of age to identify those who might develop chronic HCV infection if not treated.
• Those with detectable HCV RNA should be managed in consultation with an expert in pediatric HCV.
• Infants with undetectable HCV RNA do not require further follow-up unless clinically warranted.

“Testing perinatally exposed infants beginning at age 2 months with a NAT for HCV RNA is cost-effective and allows for earlier linkage to care, appropriate evaluation, and the opportunity to provide curative, life-saving therapy,” the MMWR report said.
 

A growing problem

The CDC noted that rates of HCV infections during pregnancy are on the rise, corresponding with the ongoing opioid crisis and intravenous drug use.

Yet most perinatally exposed children are not tested for HCV infection and are not referred for hepatitis C care. Reasons might include lack of awareness of perinatal exposure by pediatric providers, lack of regular pediatric care among exposed children, and switching of health care providers before the former recommended testing age of 18 months.

The CDC’s testing recommendation is welcome news to Dawnette A. Lewis, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “As opposed to data for hep B and HIV, we have traditionally had little information and experience regarding the transmission and impact of hep C in pregnant women and their babies. We’ve been having that conversation about the lack of information for some time, and now there’s an opportunity to get evolving data on hep C and how it affects the baby, ” she said.

Northwell Health

Northwestern Medicine

Northwestern Medicine

All infants and children perinatally exposed to the hepatitis C virus (HCV) should be tested and, if necessary, treated, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In utero–exposed infants should be tested at 2-6 months of life, much earlier than the current strategy of testing at 18 months.

HCV infection, which can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatic cancer, and transplant, will develop in 6%-7% of all perinatally exposed infants and children. Curative therapy with direct-acting antivirals can be administered starting at age 3, the CDC noted in Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (MMWR).

About 70% of children 18 months and older are not being tested with the current strategy of anti-HCV testing.

This current MMWR report supplements the 2020 CDC recommendations for adult HCV screening, which includes universal screening among pregnant persons during each pregnancy.
 

The new recommendations

• Perinatally exposed infants should receive a nucleic acid amplification test for HCV RNA at 2-6 months of age to identify those who might develop chronic HCV infection if not treated.
• Those with detectable HCV RNA should be managed in consultation with an expert in pediatric HCV.
• Infants with undetectable HCV RNA do not require further follow-up unless clinically warranted.

“Testing perinatally exposed infants beginning at age 2 months with a NAT for HCV RNA is cost-effective and allows for earlier linkage to care, appropriate evaluation, and the opportunity to provide curative, life-saving therapy,” the MMWR report said.
 

A growing problem

The CDC noted that rates of HCV infections during pregnancy are on the rise, corresponding with the ongoing opioid crisis and intravenous drug use.

Yet most perinatally exposed children are not tested for HCV infection and are not referred for hepatitis C care. Reasons might include lack of awareness of perinatal exposure by pediatric providers, lack of regular pediatric care among exposed children, and switching of health care providers before the former recommended testing age of 18 months.

The CDC’s testing recommendation is welcome news to Dawnette A. Lewis, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “As opposed to data for hep B and HIV, we have traditionally had little information and experience regarding the transmission and impact of hep C in pregnant women and their babies. We’ve been having that conversation about the lack of information for some time, and now there’s an opportunity to get evolving data on hep C and how it affects the baby, ” she said.

Northwell Health

Northwestern Medicine

Northwestern Medicine

All infants and children perinatally exposed to the hepatitis C virus (HCV) should be tested and, if necessary, treated, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In utero–exposed infants should be tested at 2-6 months of life, much earlier than the current strategy of testing at 18 months.

HCV infection, which can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatic cancer, and transplant, will develop in 6%-7% of all perinatally exposed infants and children. Curative therapy with direct-acting antivirals can be administered starting at age 3, the CDC noted in Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (MMWR).

About 70% of children 18 months and older are not being tested with the current strategy of anti-HCV testing.

This current MMWR report supplements the 2020 CDC recommendations for adult HCV screening, which includes universal screening among pregnant persons during each pregnancy.
 

The new recommendations

• Perinatally exposed infants should receive a nucleic acid amplification test for HCV RNA at 2-6 months of age to identify those who might develop chronic HCV infection if not treated.
• Those with detectable HCV RNA should be managed in consultation with an expert in pediatric HCV.
• Infants with undetectable HCV RNA do not require further follow-up unless clinically warranted.

“Testing perinatally exposed infants beginning at age 2 months with a NAT for HCV RNA is cost-effective and allows for earlier linkage to care, appropriate evaluation, and the opportunity to provide curative, life-saving therapy,” the MMWR report said.
 

A growing problem

The CDC noted that rates of HCV infections during pregnancy are on the rise, corresponding with the ongoing opioid crisis and intravenous drug use.

Yet most perinatally exposed children are not tested for HCV infection and are not referred for hepatitis C care. Reasons might include lack of awareness of perinatal exposure by pediatric providers, lack of regular pediatric care among exposed children, and switching of health care providers before the former recommended testing age of 18 months.

The CDC’s testing recommendation is welcome news to Dawnette A. Lewis, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “As opposed to data for hep B and HIV, we have traditionally had little information and experience regarding the transmission and impact of hep C in pregnant women and their babies. We’ve been having that conversation about the lack of information for some time, and now there’s an opportunity to get evolving data on hep C and how it affects the baby, ” she said.

Northwell Health

Northwestern Medicine

Northwestern Medicine

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.