MDedge Neurology

Spending more free time seated combined with engaging in low physical activity is associated with an increased risk of stroke in adults aged between 40 and 60 years, according to a new analysis.

While the risk of stroke increased more than fourfold among sedentary people under the age of 60, no significant increase in risk was observed among older individuals, according to the study based on self-reported data from more than 140,000 people. This highlights the need for relevant public health messaging directed at younger people, reported lead author, Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, a stroke fellow at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues, in the paper published in Stroke.

“Sedentary time has increased over the past 2 decades in the United States and Canada, particularly in the young, raising the importance of characterizing its effect on long-term health , ” the investigators wrote. “A better understanding of the risk of sedentary time specific to stroke may be important for public health campaigns to reduce sedentary behavior.” Dr. Joundi and colleagues reviewed data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, including 143,180 healthy individuals without baseline history of cancer, heart disease, or stroke. Those under the age of 40 years were also excluded from the analysis.

Excess sedentary leisure time was defined as 8 or more hours of sedentary leisure time per day, whereas low physical activity was defined as less than 3.5 metabolic equivalent hours per week. The analysis also included a range of demographic and medical covariates, such as age, sex, marital status, smoking status, presence of hypertension, and others.

After a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 2,965 stroke events occurred, with a median time from survey response of 5.6 years. Risk of stroke among individuals aged younger than 60 years who engaged in low physical activity and excess sedentary leisure time was increased 4.5-fold, compared with individuals with low physical activity who were sedentary less than 4 hours per day (fully adjusted hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-12.3).
 

Findings highlight benefits of physical activity

Similar risk elevations were not observed among individuals aged 60-79 years, or those older than 80. And among people younger than 60, high physical activity appeared to eliminate the additional risk imposed by excess sedentary leisure time.

“Sedentary time is associated with higher risk of stroke in inactive individuals, but not an active individual, ” Dr. Joundi said in an interview. “So it suggests that there’s two ways to lower risk: One would be to lower your sedentary time, and the other would be to engage in physical activity.”

These interpretations are speculative, Dr. Joundi cautioned, as the study was not interventional. Even so, he said that the findings “bring the spotlight back on physical activity,” thereby aligning with previous research.

“The more you exercise, the more that relationship between sedentary time and poor health outcomes is blunted, and in fact, can be completely negated with enough physical activity,” he said.

How exactly physical activity offers such protection remains unclear, Dr. Joundi added. He speculated that regularity of exercise may be key, with each session counteracting the adverse effects of prolonged sedentary time, which may include reduced blood flow, increased insulin resistance, and inflammatory changes that can affect blood vessels.

“This study is particularly a message for younger individuals,” Dr. Joundi said, suggesting that the findings may alter behavior, as many people have witnessed, or are aware of, the long-term impacts of stroke.

“There’s a sort of social or cognitive aversion to stroke, I think, in the general population, because of how disabling it can be, and how it can lower your quality of life,” he said.
 

Subtle lifestyle changes may be enough.

For those aiming to lower their risk of stroke, Dr. Joundi suggested that subtle lifestyle changes may be enough.

“Ultimately, what we saw is that even minimal amounts of physical activity – walking 3 hours a week, for example – could blunt the impact of sedentary time,” he said. “Doing what you can, even if it’s a small amount, tends to be quite meaningful over a long period of time.”

Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, professor of epidemiology in the department of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, offered a similar takeaway, noting that small efforts can lead to great benefits.

“Less intense activity is still better than being sedentary,” he said in an interview. “For many people, if you do get up and you just walk around, move your arms around – do any kind of movement – that’s better than being sedentary.”

Dr. Lackland applauded the practicality of studying sedentary leisure time, versus overall leisure time, as many people can’t control their work environment.

“You can’t do very much about how you work your job,” Dr. Lackland said. “Sometimes we have to sit, and I guess there are things you can do – you can put a treadmill instead of a chair and that kind of thing – but more often than not, you don’t really have that choice to do something. With leisure time, though, you’re in full control. And so what do you do with your leisure time? Do you sit and watch TV, or do you engage in some type of activity? Not necessarily aerobic activity, but some type of activity that would not let you be sedentary. You want to be active as much as you possibly can.”

Dr. Joundi disclosed grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The other investigators and Dr. Lackland reported no relevant disclosures.

Spending more free time seated combined with engaging in low physical activity is associated with an increased risk of stroke in adults aged between 40 and 60 years, according to a new analysis.

While the risk of stroke increased more than fourfold among sedentary people under the age of 60, no significant increase in risk was observed among older individuals, according to the study based on self-reported data from more than 140,000 people. This highlights the need for relevant public health messaging directed at younger people, reported lead author, Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, a stroke fellow at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues, in the paper published in Stroke.

“Sedentary time has increased over the past 2 decades in the United States and Canada, particularly in the young, raising the importance of characterizing its effect on long-term health , ” the investigators wrote. “A better understanding of the risk of sedentary time specific to stroke may be important for public health campaigns to reduce sedentary behavior.” Dr. Joundi and colleagues reviewed data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, including 143,180 healthy individuals without baseline history of cancer, heart disease, or stroke. Those under the age of 40 years were also excluded from the analysis.

Excess sedentary leisure time was defined as 8 or more hours of sedentary leisure time per day, whereas low physical activity was defined as less than 3.5 metabolic equivalent hours per week. The analysis also included a range of demographic and medical covariates, such as age, sex, marital status, smoking status, presence of hypertension, and others.

After a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 2,965 stroke events occurred, with a median time from survey response of 5.6 years. Risk of stroke among individuals aged younger than 60 years who engaged in low physical activity and excess sedentary leisure time was increased 4.5-fold, compared with individuals with low physical activity who were sedentary less than 4 hours per day (fully adjusted hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-12.3).
 

Findings highlight benefits of physical activity

Similar risk elevations were not observed among individuals aged 60-79 years, or those older than 80. And among people younger than 60, high physical activity appeared to eliminate the additional risk imposed by excess sedentary leisure time.

“Sedentary time is associated with higher risk of stroke in inactive individuals, but not an active individual, ” Dr. Joundi said in an interview. “So it suggests that there’s two ways to lower risk: One would be to lower your sedentary time, and the other would be to engage in physical activity.”

These interpretations are speculative, Dr. Joundi cautioned, as the study was not interventional. Even so, he said that the findings “bring the spotlight back on physical activity,” thereby aligning with previous research.

“The more you exercise, the more that relationship between sedentary time and poor health outcomes is blunted, and in fact, can be completely negated with enough physical activity,” he said.

How exactly physical activity offers such protection remains unclear, Dr. Joundi added. He speculated that regularity of exercise may be key, with each session counteracting the adverse effects of prolonged sedentary time, which may include reduced blood flow, increased insulin resistance, and inflammatory changes that can affect blood vessels.

“This study is particularly a message for younger individuals,” Dr. Joundi said, suggesting that the findings may alter behavior, as many people have witnessed, or are aware of, the long-term impacts of stroke.

“There’s a sort of social or cognitive aversion to stroke, I think, in the general population, because of how disabling it can be, and how it can lower your quality of life,” he said.
 

Subtle lifestyle changes may be enough.

For those aiming to lower their risk of stroke, Dr. Joundi suggested that subtle lifestyle changes may be enough.

“Ultimately, what we saw is that even minimal amounts of physical activity – walking 3 hours a week, for example – could blunt the impact of sedentary time,” he said. “Doing what you can, even if it’s a small amount, tends to be quite meaningful over a long period of time.”

Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, professor of epidemiology in the department of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, offered a similar takeaway, noting that small efforts can lead to great benefits.

“Less intense activity is still better than being sedentary,” he said in an interview. “For many people, if you do get up and you just walk around, move your arms around – do any kind of movement – that’s better than being sedentary.”

Dr. Lackland applauded the practicality of studying sedentary leisure time, versus overall leisure time, as many people can’t control their work environment.

“You can’t do very much about how you work your job,” Dr. Lackland said. “Sometimes we have to sit, and I guess there are things you can do – you can put a treadmill instead of a chair and that kind of thing – but more often than not, you don’t really have that choice to do something. With leisure time, though, you’re in full control. And so what do you do with your leisure time? Do you sit and watch TV, or do you engage in some type of activity? Not necessarily aerobic activity, but some type of activity that would not let you be sedentary. You want to be active as much as you possibly can.”

Dr. Joundi disclosed grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The other investigators and Dr. Lackland reported no relevant disclosures.

Spending more free time seated combined with engaging in low physical activity is associated with an increased risk of stroke in adults aged between 40 and 60 years, according to a new analysis.

While the risk of stroke increased more than fourfold among sedentary people under the age of 60, no significant increase in risk was observed among older individuals, according to the study based on self-reported data from more than 140,000 people. This highlights the need for relevant public health messaging directed at younger people, reported lead author, Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, a stroke fellow at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues, in the paper published in Stroke.

“Sedentary time has increased over the past 2 decades in the United States and Canada, particularly in the young, raising the importance of characterizing its effect on long-term health , ” the investigators wrote. “A better understanding of the risk of sedentary time specific to stroke may be important for public health campaigns to reduce sedentary behavior.” Dr. Joundi and colleagues reviewed data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, including 143,180 healthy individuals without baseline history of cancer, heart disease, or stroke. Those under the age of 40 years were also excluded from the analysis.

Excess sedentary leisure time was defined as 8 or more hours of sedentary leisure time per day, whereas low physical activity was defined as less than 3.5 metabolic equivalent hours per week. The analysis also included a range of demographic and medical covariates, such as age, sex, marital status, smoking status, presence of hypertension, and others.

After a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 2,965 stroke events occurred, with a median time from survey response of 5.6 years. Risk of stroke among individuals aged younger than 60 years who engaged in low physical activity and excess sedentary leisure time was increased 4.5-fold, compared with individuals with low physical activity who were sedentary less than 4 hours per day (fully adjusted hazard ratio, 4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-12.3).
 

Findings highlight benefits of physical activity

Similar risk elevations were not observed among individuals aged 60-79 years, or those older than 80. And among people younger than 60, high physical activity appeared to eliminate the additional risk imposed by excess sedentary leisure time.

“Sedentary time is associated with higher risk of stroke in inactive individuals, but not an active individual, ” Dr. Joundi said in an interview. “So it suggests that there’s two ways to lower risk: One would be to lower your sedentary time, and the other would be to engage in physical activity.”

These interpretations are speculative, Dr. Joundi cautioned, as the study was not interventional. Even so, he said that the findings “bring the spotlight back on physical activity,” thereby aligning with previous research.

“The more you exercise, the more that relationship between sedentary time and poor health outcomes is blunted, and in fact, can be completely negated with enough physical activity,” he said.

How exactly physical activity offers such protection remains unclear, Dr. Joundi added. He speculated that regularity of exercise may be key, with each session counteracting the adverse effects of prolonged sedentary time, which may include reduced blood flow, increased insulin resistance, and inflammatory changes that can affect blood vessels.

“This study is particularly a message for younger individuals,” Dr. Joundi said, suggesting that the findings may alter behavior, as many people have witnessed, or are aware of, the long-term impacts of stroke.

“There’s a sort of social or cognitive aversion to stroke, I think, in the general population, because of how disabling it can be, and how it can lower your quality of life,” he said.
 

Subtle lifestyle changes may be enough.

For those aiming to lower their risk of stroke, Dr. Joundi suggested that subtle lifestyle changes may be enough.

“Ultimately, what we saw is that even minimal amounts of physical activity – walking 3 hours a week, for example – could blunt the impact of sedentary time,” he said. “Doing what you can, even if it’s a small amount, tends to be quite meaningful over a long period of time.”

Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, professor of epidemiology in the department of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, offered a similar takeaway, noting that small efforts can lead to great benefits.

“Less intense activity is still better than being sedentary,” he said in an interview. “For many people, if you do get up and you just walk around, move your arms around – do any kind of movement – that’s better than being sedentary.”

Dr. Lackland applauded the practicality of studying sedentary leisure time, versus overall leisure time, as many people can’t control their work environment.

“You can’t do very much about how you work your job,” Dr. Lackland said. “Sometimes we have to sit, and I guess there are things you can do – you can put a treadmill instead of a chair and that kind of thing – but more often than not, you don’t really have that choice to do something. With leisure time, though, you’re in full control. And so what do you do with your leisure time? Do you sit and watch TV, or do you engage in some type of activity? Not necessarily aerobic activity, but some type of activity that would not let you be sedentary. You want to be active as much as you possibly can.”

Dr. Joundi disclosed grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The other investigators and Dr. Lackland reported no relevant disclosures.

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Preliminary data from seven states suggests that breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated people may be on the rise because of the more contagious Delta variant.

Breakthrough cases accounted for about one in five newly diagnosed cases in six of the states, according to the New York Times. Hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated people may be higher than previously thought as well.

“Remember when the early vaccine studies came out, it was like nobody gets hospitalized, nobody dies,” Robert Wachter, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “That clearly is not true.”

The New York Times analyzed data in seven states – California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia – that are tracking the most detailed information. The trends in these states may not reflect the numbers throughout the country, the newspaper reported.

Even still, the numbers back up the idea that vaccinated people may need booster shots this fall to support their earlier vaccine doses. Federal health officials are scheduled to approve the extra shots in coming weeks, potentially in September. The first people to receive booster shots will likely be health care workers and nursing home residents who took the first vaccines in December and January.

“If the chances of a breakthrough infection have gone up considerably, and I think the evidence is clear that they have, and the level of protection against severe illness is no longer as robust as it was, I think the case for boosters goes up pretty quickly,” Dr. Wachter said.

Previous analyses of breakthrough cases included data from June and earlier, the newspaper reported. But since July, COVID-19 cases have soared again because of the Delta variant, and the most recent numbers show an uptick among vaccinated people. In Los Angeles County, for instance, fully vaccinated people account for 20% of new COVID-19 cases, which is up from 11% in May, 5% in April, and 2% in March, according to a late July report from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

What’s more, breakthrough infections in the seven states accounted for 12%-24% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in those states. About 8,000 breakthrough hospitalizations have been reported to the CDC. Still, the overall numbers remain low – in California, for instance, about 1,615 people have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections, which accounts for 0.007% of the state’s 22 million vaccinated people, the Times reported.

The breakthrough infections appear to be more severe among vaccinated people who are older or have weakened immune systems. About 74% of breakthrough cases are among adults 65 or older, the CDC reported.

The increase may shift how vaccinated people see their risks for infection and interact with loved ones. Public health officials have suggested that people follow some COVID-19 safety protocols again, such as wearing masks in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status.

As the Delta variant continues to circulate this fall, public health researchers will be researching more about breakthrough cases among vaccinated people, including whether they have prolonged symptoms and how easily they may pass the virus to others.

“I think some of us have been challenged by the numbers of clusters that we’ve seen,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told this news organization.

“I think that really needs to be examined more,” he said.

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

Preliminary data from seven states suggests that breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated people may be on the rise because of the more contagious Delta variant.

Breakthrough cases accounted for about one in five newly diagnosed cases in six of the states, according to the New York Times. Hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated people may be higher than previously thought as well.

“Remember when the early vaccine studies came out, it was like nobody gets hospitalized, nobody dies,” Robert Wachter, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “That clearly is not true.”

The New York Times analyzed data in seven states – California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia – that are tracking the most detailed information. The trends in these states may not reflect the numbers throughout the country, the newspaper reported.

Even still, the numbers back up the idea that vaccinated people may need booster shots this fall to support their earlier vaccine doses. Federal health officials are scheduled to approve the extra shots in coming weeks, potentially in September. The first people to receive booster shots will likely be health care workers and nursing home residents who took the first vaccines in December and January.

“If the chances of a breakthrough infection have gone up considerably, and I think the evidence is clear that they have, and the level of protection against severe illness is no longer as robust as it was, I think the case for boosters goes up pretty quickly,” Dr. Wachter said.

Previous analyses of breakthrough cases included data from June and earlier, the newspaper reported. But since July, COVID-19 cases have soared again because of the Delta variant, and the most recent numbers show an uptick among vaccinated people. In Los Angeles County, for instance, fully vaccinated people account for 20% of new COVID-19 cases, which is up from 11% in May, 5% in April, and 2% in March, according to a late July report from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

What’s more, breakthrough infections in the seven states accounted for 12%-24% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in those states. About 8,000 breakthrough hospitalizations have been reported to the CDC. Still, the overall numbers remain low – in California, for instance, about 1,615 people have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections, which accounts for 0.007% of the state’s 22 million vaccinated people, the Times reported.

The breakthrough infections appear to be more severe among vaccinated people who are older or have weakened immune systems. About 74% of breakthrough cases are among adults 65 or older, the CDC reported.

The increase may shift how vaccinated people see their risks for infection and interact with loved ones. Public health officials have suggested that people follow some COVID-19 safety protocols again, such as wearing masks in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status.

As the Delta variant continues to circulate this fall, public health researchers will be researching more about breakthrough cases among vaccinated people, including whether they have prolonged symptoms and how easily they may pass the virus to others.

“I think some of us have been challenged by the numbers of clusters that we’ve seen,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told this news organization.

“I think that really needs to be examined more,” he said.

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

Preliminary data from seven states suggests that breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated people may be on the rise because of the more contagious Delta variant.

Breakthrough cases accounted for about one in five newly diagnosed cases in six of the states, according to the New York Times. Hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated people may be higher than previously thought as well.

“Remember when the early vaccine studies came out, it was like nobody gets hospitalized, nobody dies,” Robert Wachter, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “That clearly is not true.”

The New York Times analyzed data in seven states – California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia – that are tracking the most detailed information. The trends in these states may not reflect the numbers throughout the country, the newspaper reported.

Even still, the numbers back up the idea that vaccinated people may need booster shots this fall to support their earlier vaccine doses. Federal health officials are scheduled to approve the extra shots in coming weeks, potentially in September. The first people to receive booster shots will likely be health care workers and nursing home residents who took the first vaccines in December and January.

“If the chances of a breakthrough infection have gone up considerably, and I think the evidence is clear that they have, and the level of protection against severe illness is no longer as robust as it was, I think the case for boosters goes up pretty quickly,” Dr. Wachter said.

Previous analyses of breakthrough cases included data from June and earlier, the newspaper reported. But since July, COVID-19 cases have soared again because of the Delta variant, and the most recent numbers show an uptick among vaccinated people. In Los Angeles County, for instance, fully vaccinated people account for 20% of new COVID-19 cases, which is up from 11% in May, 5% in April, and 2% in March, according to a late July report from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

What’s more, breakthrough infections in the seven states accounted for 12%-24% of COVID-19 hospitalizations in those states. About 8,000 breakthrough hospitalizations have been reported to the CDC. Still, the overall numbers remain low – in California, for instance, about 1,615 people have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections, which accounts for 0.007% of the state’s 22 million vaccinated people, the Times reported.

The breakthrough infections appear to be more severe among vaccinated people who are older or have weakened immune systems. About 74% of breakthrough cases are among adults 65 or older, the CDC reported.

The increase may shift how vaccinated people see their risks for infection and interact with loved ones. Public health officials have suggested that people follow some COVID-19 safety protocols again, such as wearing masks in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status.

As the Delta variant continues to circulate this fall, public health researchers will be researching more about breakthrough cases among vaccinated people, including whether they have prolonged symptoms and how easily they may pass the virus to others.

“I think some of us have been challenged by the numbers of clusters that we’ve seen,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told this news organization.

“I think that really needs to be examined more,” he said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

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

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

There is currently no evidence that newer antiseizure medications increase the risk for suicide among patients with epilepsy, new research shows. “There appears to be no justification for the FDA to label every new antiseizure medication with a warning that it may increase risk of suicidality,” said study investigator Michael R. Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“How many patients are afraid of their medication and do not take it because of the warning – and are consequently at risk because of that? We do not know, but have anecdotal experience that this is certainly an issue,” Dr. Sperling, who is director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, added.

The study was published online August 2 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Blanket warning

In 2008, the FDA issued an alert stating that antiseizure medications increase suicidality. The alert was based on pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials that included 11 antiseizure medications – carbamazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide.

The meta-analytic review showed that, compared with placebo, antiseizure medications nearly doubled suicide risk among patients treated for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. As a result of the FDA study, all antiseizure medications that have been approved since 2008 carry a warning for suicidality.

However, subsequent analyses did not show the same results, Dr. Sperling and colleagues noted.

“Pivotal” antiseizure medication epilepsy trials since 2008 have evaluated suicidality prospectively. Since 2011, trials have included the validated Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, they noted.
 

Meta analysis showed no increased risk

Dr. Sperling and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 17 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of five antiseizure medications approved since 2008. These antiseizure medications were eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. The trials involved 5,996 patients, including 4,000 who were treated with antiseizure medications and 1,996 who were treated with placebo.

Confining the analysis to epilepsy trials avoids potential confounders, such as possible differences in suicidality risks between different diseases, the researchers noted.

They found no evidence of increased risk for suicidal ideation (overall risk ratio, antiseizure medications vs. placebo: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-1.60) or suicide attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual antiseizure medication.

Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4,000 patients treated with antiseizure medications (0.30%), versus 7 of 1,996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients who were treated with antiseizure medications attempted suicide; no patients who were treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

“There is no current evidence that the five antiseizure medications evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning,” the investigators wrote. When prescribed for epilepsy, “evidence does not support the FDA’s labeling practice of a blanket assumption of increased suicidality,” said Dr. Sperling.

“Our findings indicate the nonspecific suicide warning for all epilepsy drugs is simply not justifiable,” he said. “The results are not surprising. Different drugs affect cells in different ways. So there’s no reason to expect that every drug would increase suicide risk for every patient,” Dr. Sperling said in a statement.

“It’s important to recognize that epilepsy has many causes – perinatal injury, stroke, tumor, head trauma, developmental malformations, genetic causes, and others – and these underlying etiologies may well contribute to the presence of depression and suicidality in this population,” he said in an interview. “Psychodynamic influences also may occur as a consequence of having seizures. This is a complicated area, and drugs are simply one piece of the puzzle,” he added.

Dr. Sperling said the FDA has accomplished “one useful thing with its warning – it highlighted that physicians and other health care providers must pay attention to their patients’ psychological state, ask questions, and treat accordingly.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sperling has received grants from Eisai, Medtronic, Neurelis, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Takeda, Xenon, Cerevel Therapeutics, UCB Pharma, and Engage Pharma; personal fees from Neurelis, Medscape, Neurology Live, International Medical Press, UCB Pharma, Eisai, Oxford University Press, and Projects in Knowledge. He has also consulted for Medtronic outside the submitted work; payments went to Thomas Jefferson University. A complete list of authors’ disclosures is available with the original article.

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

There is currently no evidence that newer antiseizure medications increase the risk for suicide among patients with epilepsy, new research shows. “There appears to be no justification for the FDA to label every new antiseizure medication with a warning that it may increase risk of suicidality,” said study investigator Michael R. Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“How many patients are afraid of their medication and do not take it because of the warning – and are consequently at risk because of that? We do not know, but have anecdotal experience that this is certainly an issue,” Dr. Sperling, who is director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, added.

The study was published online August 2 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Blanket warning

In 2008, the FDA issued an alert stating that antiseizure medications increase suicidality. The alert was based on pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials that included 11 antiseizure medications – carbamazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide.

The meta-analytic review showed that, compared with placebo, antiseizure medications nearly doubled suicide risk among patients treated for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. As a result of the FDA study, all antiseizure medications that have been approved since 2008 carry a warning for suicidality.

However, subsequent analyses did not show the same results, Dr. Sperling and colleagues noted.

“Pivotal” antiseizure medication epilepsy trials since 2008 have evaluated suicidality prospectively. Since 2011, trials have included the validated Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, they noted.
 

Meta analysis showed no increased risk

Dr. Sperling and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 17 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of five antiseizure medications approved since 2008. These antiseizure medications were eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. The trials involved 5,996 patients, including 4,000 who were treated with antiseizure medications and 1,996 who were treated with placebo.

Confining the analysis to epilepsy trials avoids potential confounders, such as possible differences in suicidality risks between different diseases, the researchers noted.

They found no evidence of increased risk for suicidal ideation (overall risk ratio, antiseizure medications vs. placebo: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-1.60) or suicide attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual antiseizure medication.

Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4,000 patients treated with antiseizure medications (0.30%), versus 7 of 1,996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients who were treated with antiseizure medications attempted suicide; no patients who were treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

“There is no current evidence that the five antiseizure medications evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning,” the investigators wrote. When prescribed for epilepsy, “evidence does not support the FDA’s labeling practice of a blanket assumption of increased suicidality,” said Dr. Sperling.

“Our findings indicate the nonspecific suicide warning for all epilepsy drugs is simply not justifiable,” he said. “The results are not surprising. Different drugs affect cells in different ways. So there’s no reason to expect that every drug would increase suicide risk for every patient,” Dr. Sperling said in a statement.

“It’s important to recognize that epilepsy has many causes – perinatal injury, stroke, tumor, head trauma, developmental malformations, genetic causes, and others – and these underlying etiologies may well contribute to the presence of depression and suicidality in this population,” he said in an interview. “Psychodynamic influences also may occur as a consequence of having seizures. This is a complicated area, and drugs are simply one piece of the puzzle,” he added.

Dr. Sperling said the FDA has accomplished “one useful thing with its warning – it highlighted that physicians and other health care providers must pay attention to their patients’ psychological state, ask questions, and treat accordingly.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sperling has received grants from Eisai, Medtronic, Neurelis, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Takeda, Xenon, Cerevel Therapeutics, UCB Pharma, and Engage Pharma; personal fees from Neurelis, Medscape, Neurology Live, International Medical Press, UCB Pharma, Eisai, Oxford University Press, and Projects in Knowledge. He has also consulted for Medtronic outside the submitted work; payments went to Thomas Jefferson University. A complete list of authors’ disclosures is available with the original article.

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

There is currently no evidence that newer antiseizure medications increase the risk for suicide among patients with epilepsy, new research shows. “There appears to be no justification for the FDA to label every new antiseizure medication with a warning that it may increase risk of suicidality,” said study investigator Michael R. Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“How many patients are afraid of their medication and do not take it because of the warning – and are consequently at risk because of that? We do not know, but have anecdotal experience that this is certainly an issue,” Dr. Sperling, who is director of the Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, added.

The study was published online August 2 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Blanket warning

In 2008, the FDA issued an alert stating that antiseizure medications increase suicidality. The alert was based on pooled data from placebo-controlled clinical trials that included 11 antiseizure medications – carbamazepine, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide.

The meta-analytic review showed that, compared with placebo, antiseizure medications nearly doubled suicide risk among patients treated for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, and other diseases. As a result of the FDA study, all antiseizure medications that have been approved since 2008 carry a warning for suicidality.

However, subsequent analyses did not show the same results, Dr. Sperling and colleagues noted.

“Pivotal” antiseizure medication epilepsy trials since 2008 have evaluated suicidality prospectively. Since 2011, trials have included the validated Columbia Suicidality Severity Rating Scale, they noted.
 

Meta analysis showed no increased risk

Dr. Sperling and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 17 randomized placebo-controlled epilepsy trials of five antiseizure medications approved since 2008. These antiseizure medications were eslicarbazepine, perampanel, brivaracetam, cannabidiol, and cenobamate. The trials involved 5,996 patients, including 4,000 who were treated with antiseizure medications and 1,996 who were treated with placebo.

Confining the analysis to epilepsy trials avoids potential confounders, such as possible differences in suicidality risks between different diseases, the researchers noted.

They found no evidence of increased risk for suicidal ideation (overall risk ratio, antiseizure medications vs. placebo: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-1.60) or suicide attempt (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI: 0.30-1.87) overall or for any individual antiseizure medication.

Suicidal ideation occurred in 12 of 4,000 patients treated with antiseizure medications (0.30%), versus 7 of 1,996 patients treated with placebo (0.35%) (P = .74). Three patients who were treated with antiseizure medications attempted suicide; no patients who were treated with placebo attempted suicide (P = .22). There were no completed suicides.

“There is no current evidence that the five antiseizure medications evaluated in this study increase suicidality in epilepsy and merit a suicidality class warning,” the investigators wrote. When prescribed for epilepsy, “evidence does not support the FDA’s labeling practice of a blanket assumption of increased suicidality,” said Dr. Sperling.

“Our findings indicate the nonspecific suicide warning for all epilepsy drugs is simply not justifiable,” he said. “The results are not surprising. Different drugs affect cells in different ways. So there’s no reason to expect that every drug would increase suicide risk for every patient,” Dr. Sperling said in a statement.

“It’s important to recognize that epilepsy has many causes – perinatal injury, stroke, tumor, head trauma, developmental malformations, genetic causes, and others – and these underlying etiologies may well contribute to the presence of depression and suicidality in this population,” he said in an interview. “Psychodynamic influences also may occur as a consequence of having seizures. This is a complicated area, and drugs are simply one piece of the puzzle,” he added.

Dr. Sperling said the FDA has accomplished “one useful thing with its warning – it highlighted that physicians and other health care providers must pay attention to their patients’ psychological state, ask questions, and treat accordingly.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sperling has received grants from Eisai, Medtronic, Neurelis, SK Life Science, Sunovion, Takeda, Xenon, Cerevel Therapeutics, UCB Pharma, and Engage Pharma; personal fees from Neurelis, Medscape, Neurology Live, International Medical Press, UCB Pharma, Eisai, Oxford University Press, and Projects in Knowledge. He has also consulted for Medtronic outside the submitted work; payments went to Thomas Jefferson University. A complete list of authors’ disclosures is available with the original article.

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

In the Phoenix summer days of 1998 I did a lot of walking. It wasn’t for exercise, though it was pretty good for that, I guess.

I had privileges at three hospitals, and used their staff directories to make a map of every medical office building in the area I was trying to start my practice in. I was 32, idealistic, married for a year, a child on the way, and we’d just bought our first house. So I had a lot of incentive.

The Phoenix summer isn’t conducive to walking, especially in standard medical office attire (I didn’t give that up until 2006). But I did it. I went into one office after another, introduced myself, gave them my CV, some business cards, and my pager number (yeah, I had a pager). I cooled off and drank water in my car as I drove to the next building – wash, rinse, repeat.

Occasionally the doctors I met would have a few minutes to meet me, which I appreciated. One of them, who’d been in the same boat a few years earlier himself, invited me back to his office, and we chatted for maybe 10 minutes.

We got along, and worked well together for several years. We tended to round at the same times of day and so ran into each other a lot. He sent me patients, I sent him patients, and when we met on rounds we’d talk about nothing in particular for a few minutes.

After I cut back on my hospital work I didn’t see him as much, though we still referred patients back and forth and occasionally crossed paths while covering weekends.

I found out that he retired recently.

It gave me an odd pause. I thought of our first encounter 23 years ago, me trying to get started in my profession, him established, but close enough to recall what it was like to be starting out that he spared a few minutes for me. Remembering that, I still try to make an effort to meet new physicians who come by for the same reason. Hell, they might end up taking care of me someday. Assuming a medical career is 30-40 years, I’m past the halfway point.

Not today, not tomorrow, but in the years to come my generation of physicians will start to retire, walking away from a role that has defined both our personal and professional lives.

I both am and am not looking forward to it. This was just another reminder that time rolls on for all of us.
 

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

In the Phoenix summer days of 1998 I did a lot of walking. It wasn’t for exercise, though it was pretty good for that, I guess.

I had privileges at three hospitals, and used their staff directories to make a map of every medical office building in the area I was trying to start my practice in. I was 32, idealistic, married for a year, a child on the way, and we’d just bought our first house. So I had a lot of incentive.

The Phoenix summer isn’t conducive to walking, especially in standard medical office attire (I didn’t give that up until 2006). But I did it. I went into one office after another, introduced myself, gave them my CV, some business cards, and my pager number (yeah, I had a pager). I cooled off and drank water in my car as I drove to the next building – wash, rinse, repeat.

Occasionally the doctors I met would have a few minutes to meet me, which I appreciated. One of them, who’d been in the same boat a few years earlier himself, invited me back to his office, and we chatted for maybe 10 minutes.

We got along, and worked well together for several years. We tended to round at the same times of day and so ran into each other a lot. He sent me patients, I sent him patients, and when we met on rounds we’d talk about nothing in particular for a few minutes.

After I cut back on my hospital work I didn’t see him as much, though we still referred patients back and forth and occasionally crossed paths while covering weekends.

I found out that he retired recently.

It gave me an odd pause. I thought of our first encounter 23 years ago, me trying to get started in my profession, him established, but close enough to recall what it was like to be starting out that he spared a few minutes for me. Remembering that, I still try to make an effort to meet new physicians who come by for the same reason. Hell, they might end up taking care of me someday. Assuming a medical career is 30-40 years, I’m past the halfway point.

Not today, not tomorrow, but in the years to come my generation of physicians will start to retire, walking away from a role that has defined both our personal and professional lives.

I both am and am not looking forward to it. This was just another reminder that time rolls on for all of us.
 

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

In the Phoenix summer days of 1998 I did a lot of walking. It wasn’t for exercise, though it was pretty good for that, I guess.

I had privileges at three hospitals, and used their staff directories to make a map of every medical office building in the area I was trying to start my practice in. I was 32, idealistic, married for a year, a child on the way, and we’d just bought our first house. So I had a lot of incentive.

The Phoenix summer isn’t conducive to walking, especially in standard medical office attire (I didn’t give that up until 2006). But I did it. I went into one office after another, introduced myself, gave them my CV, some business cards, and my pager number (yeah, I had a pager). I cooled off and drank water in my car as I drove to the next building – wash, rinse, repeat.

Occasionally the doctors I met would have a few minutes to meet me, which I appreciated. One of them, who’d been in the same boat a few years earlier himself, invited me back to his office, and we chatted for maybe 10 minutes.

We got along, and worked well together for several years. We tended to round at the same times of day and so ran into each other a lot. He sent me patients, I sent him patients, and when we met on rounds we’d talk about nothing in particular for a few minutes.

After I cut back on my hospital work I didn’t see him as much, though we still referred patients back and forth and occasionally crossed paths while covering weekends.

I found out that he retired recently.

It gave me an odd pause. I thought of our first encounter 23 years ago, me trying to get started in my profession, him established, but close enough to recall what it was like to be starting out that he spared a few minutes for me. Remembering that, I still try to make an effort to meet new physicians who come by for the same reason. Hell, they might end up taking care of me someday. Assuming a medical career is 30-40 years, I’m past the halfway point.

Not today, not tomorrow, but in the years to come my generation of physicians will start to retire, walking away from a role that has defined both our personal and professional lives.

I both am and am not looking forward to it. This was just another reminder that time rolls on for all of us.
 

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

Wisdom increases with age, and although this personality trait is regarded as nebulous by many, there is evidence that it has biological and neuropsychiatric underpinnings. It could even hold the key to reducing loneliness and burnout among older people.

Courtesy Dr. Tanya T. Nguyen

Those were some of the key messages delivered by Tanya T. Nguyen, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, who spoke at a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“To many people, wisdom remains a fuzzy concept that’s difficult to operationalize and measure. It’s analogous to the concepts of consciousness, emotions, and cognitions, which at one point were considered nonscientific, but today we accept them as biological and scientific entities,” Dr. Nguyen said during her talk at the meeting presented by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Interest in quantifying and studying wisdom has picked up in recent years, and Dr. Nguyen gave a definition with six elements that includes prosocial behaviors such as empathy and compassion, as well as emotional regulation, self-reflection, decisiveness, and social decision-making. She also included a spirituality component, though she conceded that this is controversial.

She noted that there are cultural variations in the definition of wisdom, but it has changed little over time, suggesting that it may be biological rather than cultural in nature, and therefore may have a neuropsychiatric underpinning.

Loss of some or all characteristics of wisdom occurs in some behaviors and disorders, including most markedly in the neurodegenerative disorder frontotemporal dementia (FTD), which is characterized by damage only in the prefrontal cortex and anterior temporal lobes. It usually occurs before age 60, and patients exhibit poor social awareness, impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and a lack of insight and empathy.

This and other lines of evidence have led to the suggestion that wisdom may be governed by processes in the prefrontal cortex and the limbic striatum. The prefrontal cortex controls executive functions such as planning, predicting, and anticipating events, as well as managing emotional reactions and impulses. “Thus, wisdom involves parts of the brain that balance cold, hard analytical reasoning with primitive desires and drives, which ultimately leads to self-regulation, social insight, theory of mind, and empathy,” said Dr. Nguyen.

Wisdom has long been associated with age, but age is also linked to cognitive decline. A recent discovery that the brain does not stop evolving at older age may help explain this contradiction. Brains develop in a back to front order, so that the prefrontal cortex is the last to mature. As we age, neural activity shifts from the occipital lobes to the prefrontal cortex and its executive decision-making power.

“The brain may recruit higher-order networks to the prefrontal cortex that are associated with wisdom development,” said Dr. Nguyen. She also pointed out that asymmetry between the left and right hemisphere is reduced with age, as tasks that relied on circuits from one hemisphere or another more often call upon both. “In order to make up for lost synapses and neurons with aging, active older adults use more neuronal networks from both hemispheres to perform the same mental activity,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Some interventions can improve scores in traits associated with wisdom in older adults, and could be an important contributor to improvements in health and longevity, said Dr. Nguyen. Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that psychosocial or behavioral interventions can improve elements of wisdom such as prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation, both in people with mental illness and in the general population, with moderate to large effect sizes. But such studies don’t prove an effect on overall wisdom.

Dr. Nguyen’s group tested a manualized intervention called Raise Your Resilience, which attempts to improve wisdom, resilience, and perceived stress through engagement in value-based activities. The intervention achieved positive results in 89 participants in senior housing communities, though the effect sizes were small, possibly because of high baseline resilience. A subanalysis suggested that reduction in loneliness was mediated by an increase in compassion.

“One of the most striking findings from our research on wisdom is this consistent and very strongly negative correlation between wisdom and loneliness,” Dr. Nguyen said. She highlighted other U.S. nationwide and cross-cultural studies that showed inverse relationships between loneliness and wisdom.

Loneliness is an important topic because it can contribute to burnout and suicide rates.

“Loneliness has a profound effect on how we show up in the workplace, in school, and in our communities. And that leads to anxiety, depression, depersonalization, and emotional fatigue. All are key features of burnout. And together loneliness and burnout have contributed to increased rates of suicide by 30%, and opioid-related deaths almost sixfold since the late 1990s,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Loneliness also is associated with worse physical health, and it may be linked to wisdom. “Loneliness can be conceptualized as being caused and maintained by objective circumstances, such as physical or social distancing, and by thoughts, behaviors, and feelings surrounding those experiences, including biased perceptions of social relations, and a negative assessment of one’s social skills, which then results in a discrepancy between one’s desired and perceived social relationships, which then can contribute to social withdrawal,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Dr. Nguyen highlighted the AARP Foundation’s Experience Corps program, which recruits older adults to act as mentors and tutors for children in kindergarten through third grade. It involves 15 hours per week over an entire school year, with a focus on child literacy, development, and behavioral management skills. A study revealed a significant impact. “It showed improvements in children’s grades and happiness, as well as seniors’ mental and physical health,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Dr. Nguyen concluded that wisdom “may be a vaccine against compassion fatigue and burnout that drive today’s behavioral epidemics of loneliness, opioid abuse, and suicide. It’s a tool for our times. It’s nuanced, flexible, pragmatic, compassionate, and it presents a reasonable framework for getting along in the often messy world that we all share.”
 

Implications for psychiatrists

Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, who organized the conference, suggested that the benefits of wisdom may not be limited to patients. He pointed out that surgeons often retire at age 60 or 65 because of declining physical skills, while psychiatrists continue to practice.

“We develop more wisdom and better skills, and we can practice into our 60s and 70s. I know psychiatrists who practice sometimes into their 80s. It’s really a wonderful thing to know that what you do in life develops or enhances the neuroplasticity of certain brain regions. In our case, in psychiatry, it is the brain regions involved in wisdom,” commented Dr. Nasrallah, who is a professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Nguyen has no financial disclosures. Dr. Nasrallah has received grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Forest, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Shire, and advises Abbott, AstraZeneca, and Shire.

Wisdom increases with age, and although this personality trait is regarded as nebulous by many, there is evidence that it has biological and neuropsychiatric underpinnings. It could even hold the key to reducing loneliness and burnout among older people.

Courtesy Dr. Tanya T. Nguyen

Those were some of the key messages delivered by Tanya T. Nguyen, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, who spoke at a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“To many people, wisdom remains a fuzzy concept that’s difficult to operationalize and measure. It’s analogous to the concepts of consciousness, emotions, and cognitions, which at one point were considered nonscientific, but today we accept them as biological and scientific entities,” Dr. Nguyen said during her talk at the meeting presented by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Interest in quantifying and studying wisdom has picked up in recent years, and Dr. Nguyen gave a definition with six elements that includes prosocial behaviors such as empathy and compassion, as well as emotional regulation, self-reflection, decisiveness, and social decision-making. She also included a spirituality component, though she conceded that this is controversial.

She noted that there are cultural variations in the definition of wisdom, but it has changed little over time, suggesting that it may be biological rather than cultural in nature, and therefore may have a neuropsychiatric underpinning.

Loss of some or all characteristics of wisdom occurs in some behaviors and disorders, including most markedly in the neurodegenerative disorder frontotemporal dementia (FTD), which is characterized by damage only in the prefrontal cortex and anterior temporal lobes. It usually occurs before age 60, and patients exhibit poor social awareness, impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and a lack of insight and empathy.

This and other lines of evidence have led to the suggestion that wisdom may be governed by processes in the prefrontal cortex and the limbic striatum. The prefrontal cortex controls executive functions such as planning, predicting, and anticipating events, as well as managing emotional reactions and impulses. “Thus, wisdom involves parts of the brain that balance cold, hard analytical reasoning with primitive desires and drives, which ultimately leads to self-regulation, social insight, theory of mind, and empathy,” said Dr. Nguyen.

Wisdom has long been associated with age, but age is also linked to cognitive decline. A recent discovery that the brain does not stop evolving at older age may help explain this contradiction. Brains develop in a back to front order, so that the prefrontal cortex is the last to mature. As we age, neural activity shifts from the occipital lobes to the prefrontal cortex and its executive decision-making power.

“The brain may recruit higher-order networks to the prefrontal cortex that are associated with wisdom development,” said Dr. Nguyen. She also pointed out that asymmetry between the left and right hemisphere is reduced with age, as tasks that relied on circuits from one hemisphere or another more often call upon both. “In order to make up for lost synapses and neurons with aging, active older adults use more neuronal networks from both hemispheres to perform the same mental activity,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Some interventions can improve scores in traits associated with wisdom in older adults, and could be an important contributor to improvements in health and longevity, said Dr. Nguyen. Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that psychosocial or behavioral interventions can improve elements of wisdom such as prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation, both in people with mental illness and in the general population, with moderate to large effect sizes. But such studies don’t prove an effect on overall wisdom.

Dr. Nguyen’s group tested a manualized intervention called Raise Your Resilience, which attempts to improve wisdom, resilience, and perceived stress through engagement in value-based activities. The intervention achieved positive results in 89 participants in senior housing communities, though the effect sizes were small, possibly because of high baseline resilience. A subanalysis suggested that reduction in loneliness was mediated by an increase in compassion.

“One of the most striking findings from our research on wisdom is this consistent and very strongly negative correlation between wisdom and loneliness,” Dr. Nguyen said. She highlighted other U.S. nationwide and cross-cultural studies that showed inverse relationships between loneliness and wisdom.

Loneliness is an important topic because it can contribute to burnout and suicide rates.

“Loneliness has a profound effect on how we show up in the workplace, in school, and in our communities. And that leads to anxiety, depression, depersonalization, and emotional fatigue. All are key features of burnout. And together loneliness and burnout have contributed to increased rates of suicide by 30%, and opioid-related deaths almost sixfold since the late 1990s,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Loneliness also is associated with worse physical health, and it may be linked to wisdom. “Loneliness can be conceptualized as being caused and maintained by objective circumstances, such as physical or social distancing, and by thoughts, behaviors, and feelings surrounding those experiences, including biased perceptions of social relations, and a negative assessment of one’s social skills, which then results in a discrepancy between one’s desired and perceived social relationships, which then can contribute to social withdrawal,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Dr. Nguyen highlighted the AARP Foundation’s Experience Corps program, which recruits older adults to act as mentors and tutors for children in kindergarten through third grade. It involves 15 hours per week over an entire school year, with a focus on child literacy, development, and behavioral management skills. A study revealed a significant impact. “It showed improvements in children’s grades and happiness, as well as seniors’ mental and physical health,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Dr. Nguyen concluded that wisdom “may be a vaccine against compassion fatigue and burnout that drive today’s behavioral epidemics of loneliness, opioid abuse, and suicide. It’s a tool for our times. It’s nuanced, flexible, pragmatic, compassionate, and it presents a reasonable framework for getting along in the often messy world that we all share.”
 

Implications for psychiatrists

Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, who organized the conference, suggested that the benefits of wisdom may not be limited to patients. He pointed out that surgeons often retire at age 60 or 65 because of declining physical skills, while psychiatrists continue to practice.

“We develop more wisdom and better skills, and we can practice into our 60s and 70s. I know psychiatrists who practice sometimes into their 80s. It’s really a wonderful thing to know that what you do in life develops or enhances the neuroplasticity of certain brain regions. In our case, in psychiatry, it is the brain regions involved in wisdom,” commented Dr. Nasrallah, who is a professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Nguyen has no financial disclosures. Dr. Nasrallah has received grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Forest, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Shire, and advises Abbott, AstraZeneca, and Shire.

Wisdom increases with age, and although this personality trait is regarded as nebulous by many, there is evidence that it has biological and neuropsychiatric underpinnings. It could even hold the key to reducing loneliness and burnout among older people.

Courtesy Dr. Tanya T. Nguyen

Those were some of the key messages delivered by Tanya T. Nguyen, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, who spoke at a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“To many people, wisdom remains a fuzzy concept that’s difficult to operationalize and measure. It’s analogous to the concepts of consciousness, emotions, and cognitions, which at one point were considered nonscientific, but today we accept them as biological and scientific entities,” Dr. Nguyen said during her talk at the meeting presented by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Interest in quantifying and studying wisdom has picked up in recent years, and Dr. Nguyen gave a definition with six elements that includes prosocial behaviors such as empathy and compassion, as well as emotional regulation, self-reflection, decisiveness, and social decision-making. She also included a spirituality component, though she conceded that this is controversial.

She noted that there are cultural variations in the definition of wisdom, but it has changed little over time, suggesting that it may be biological rather than cultural in nature, and therefore may have a neuropsychiatric underpinning.

Loss of some or all characteristics of wisdom occurs in some behaviors and disorders, including most markedly in the neurodegenerative disorder frontotemporal dementia (FTD), which is characterized by damage only in the prefrontal cortex and anterior temporal lobes. It usually occurs before age 60, and patients exhibit poor social awareness, impulsivity, antisocial behavior, and a lack of insight and empathy.

This and other lines of evidence have led to the suggestion that wisdom may be governed by processes in the prefrontal cortex and the limbic striatum. The prefrontal cortex controls executive functions such as planning, predicting, and anticipating events, as well as managing emotional reactions and impulses. “Thus, wisdom involves parts of the brain that balance cold, hard analytical reasoning with primitive desires and drives, which ultimately leads to self-regulation, social insight, theory of mind, and empathy,” said Dr. Nguyen.

Wisdom has long been associated with age, but age is also linked to cognitive decline. A recent discovery that the brain does not stop evolving at older age may help explain this contradiction. Brains develop in a back to front order, so that the prefrontal cortex is the last to mature. As we age, neural activity shifts from the occipital lobes to the prefrontal cortex and its executive decision-making power.

“The brain may recruit higher-order networks to the prefrontal cortex that are associated with wisdom development,” said Dr. Nguyen. She also pointed out that asymmetry between the left and right hemisphere is reduced with age, as tasks that relied on circuits from one hemisphere or another more often call upon both. “In order to make up for lost synapses and neurons with aging, active older adults use more neuronal networks from both hemispheres to perform the same mental activity,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Some interventions can improve scores in traits associated with wisdom in older adults, and could be an important contributor to improvements in health and longevity, said Dr. Nguyen. Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that psychosocial or behavioral interventions can improve elements of wisdom such as prosocial behaviors and emotional regulation, both in people with mental illness and in the general population, with moderate to large effect sizes. But such studies don’t prove an effect on overall wisdom.

Dr. Nguyen’s group tested a manualized intervention called Raise Your Resilience, which attempts to improve wisdom, resilience, and perceived stress through engagement in value-based activities. The intervention achieved positive results in 89 participants in senior housing communities, though the effect sizes were small, possibly because of high baseline resilience. A subanalysis suggested that reduction in loneliness was mediated by an increase in compassion.

“One of the most striking findings from our research on wisdom is this consistent and very strongly negative correlation between wisdom and loneliness,” Dr. Nguyen said. She highlighted other U.S. nationwide and cross-cultural studies that showed inverse relationships between loneliness and wisdom.

Loneliness is an important topic because it can contribute to burnout and suicide rates.

“Loneliness has a profound effect on how we show up in the workplace, in school, and in our communities. And that leads to anxiety, depression, depersonalization, and emotional fatigue. All are key features of burnout. And together loneliness and burnout have contributed to increased rates of suicide by 30%, and opioid-related deaths almost sixfold since the late 1990s,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Loneliness also is associated with worse physical health, and it may be linked to wisdom. “Loneliness can be conceptualized as being caused and maintained by objective circumstances, such as physical or social distancing, and by thoughts, behaviors, and feelings surrounding those experiences, including biased perceptions of social relations, and a negative assessment of one’s social skills, which then results in a discrepancy between one’s desired and perceived social relationships, which then can contribute to social withdrawal,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Dr. Nguyen highlighted the AARP Foundation’s Experience Corps program, which recruits older adults to act as mentors and tutors for children in kindergarten through third grade. It involves 15 hours per week over an entire school year, with a focus on child literacy, development, and behavioral management skills. A study revealed a significant impact. “It showed improvements in children’s grades and happiness, as well as seniors’ mental and physical health,” Dr. Nguyen said.

Dr. Nguyen concluded that wisdom “may be a vaccine against compassion fatigue and burnout that drive today’s behavioral epidemics of loneliness, opioid abuse, and suicide. It’s a tool for our times. It’s nuanced, flexible, pragmatic, compassionate, and it presents a reasonable framework for getting along in the often messy world that we all share.”
 

Implications for psychiatrists

Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, who organized the conference, suggested that the benefits of wisdom may not be limited to patients. He pointed out that surgeons often retire at age 60 or 65 because of declining physical skills, while psychiatrists continue to practice.

“We develop more wisdom and better skills, and we can practice into our 60s and 70s. I know psychiatrists who practice sometimes into their 80s. It’s really a wonderful thing to know that what you do in life develops or enhances the neuroplasticity of certain brain regions. In our case, in psychiatry, it is the brain regions involved in wisdom,” commented Dr. Nasrallah, who is a professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Nguyen has no financial disclosures. Dr. Nasrallah has received grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Forest, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Shire, and advises Abbott, AstraZeneca, and Shire.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has officially signed off on a recommendation by an independent panel of 11 experts to allow people with weakened immune function to get a third dose of certain COVID-19 vaccines.

The decision follows a unanimous vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which in turn came hours after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

About 7 million adults in the United States have moderately to severely impaired immune function because of a medical condition they live with or a medication they take to manage a health condition.

People who fall into this category are at higher risk of being hospitalized or dying if they get COVID-19. They are also more likely to transmit the infection. About 40% of vaccinated patients who are hospitalized with breakthrough cases are immunocompromised.

Recent studies have shown that between one-third and one-half of immunocompromised people who didn’t develop antibodies after two doses of a vaccine do get some level of protection after a third dose.

Even then, however, the protection immunocompromised people get from vaccines is not as robust as someone who has healthy immune function, and some panel members were concerned that a third dose might come with a false sense of security.

“My only concern with adding a third dose for the immunocompromised is the impression that our immunocompromised population [will] then be safe,” said ACIP member Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

“I think the reality is they’ll be safer but still at incredibly high risk for severe disease and death,” she said.

In updating its EUA, the FDA stressed that, even after a third dose, people who are immunocompromised will still need to wear a mask indoors, socially distance, and avoid large crowds. In addition, family members and other close contacts should be fully vaccinated to protect these vulnerable individuals.
 

Johnson & Johnson not in the mix

The boosters will be available to children as young as 12 years of age who’ve had a Pfizer vaccine or those ages 18 and older who’ve gotten the Moderna vaccine.

For now, people who’ve had the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine have not been cleared to get a second dose of any vaccine.

FDA experts acknowledged the gap but said that people who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine represented a small slice of vaccinated Americans, and said they couldn’t act before the FDA had updated its authorization for that vaccine, which the agency is actively exploring.

“We had to do what we’re doing based on the data we have in hand,” said Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, the division of the agency that regulates vaccines.

“We think at least there is a solution here for the very large majority of immunocompromised individuals, and we believe we will probably have a solution for the remainder in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Marks said.

In its updated EUA, the FDA said that the third shots were intended for people who had undergone solid organ transplants or have an “equivalent level of immunocompromise.”
 

The details

Clinical experts on the CDC panel spent a good deal of time trying to suss out exactly what conditions might fall under the FDA’s umbrella for a third dose.

In a presentation to the committee, Neela Goswami, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, stressed that the shots are intended for patients who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, in close consultation with their doctors, but that people who should qualify would include those:

• Receiving treatment for solid tumors or blood cancers
• Taking immunosuppressing medications after a solid organ transplant
• Within 2 years of receiving CAR-T therapy or a stem cell transplant
• Who have primary immunodeficiencies – rare genetic disorders that prevent the immune system from working properly
• With advanced or untreated 
• Taking high-dose corticosteroids (more than 20 milligrams of  or its equivalent daily), alkylating agents, antimetabolites, chemotherapy, TNF blockers, or other immunomodulating or immunosuppressing biologics
• With certain chronic medical conditions, such as  or asplenia – living without a spleen
• Receiving dialysis

In discussion, CDC experts clarified that these third doses were not intended for people whose immune function had waned with age, such as elderly residents of long-term care facilities or people with chronic diseases like diabetes.

The idea is to try to get a third dose of the vaccine they’ve already had – Moderna or Pfizer – but if that’s not feasible, it’s fine for the third dose to be different from what someone has had before. The third dose should be given at least 28 days after a second dose, and, ideally, before the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Participants in the meeting said that the CDC would post updated materials on its website to help guide physicians on exactly who should receive third doses.

Ultimately, however, the extra doses will be given on an honor system; no prescriptions or other kinds of clinical documentation will be required for people to get a third dose of these shots.

Tests to measure neutralizing antibodies are also not recommended before the shots are given because of differences in the types of tests used to measure these antibodies and the difficulty in interpreting them. It’s unclear right now what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed for protection.
 

‘Peace of mind’

In public testimony, Heather Braaten, a 44-year-old being treated for ovarian cancer, said she was grateful to have gotten two shots of the Pfizer vaccine last winter, in between rounds of chemotherapy, but she knew she was probably not well protected. She said she’d become obsessive over the past few months reading medical studies and trying to understand her risk.

“I have felt distraught over the situation. My prognosis is poor. I most likely have about two to three years left to live, so everything counts,” Ms. Braaten said.

She said her life ambitions were humble. She wants to visit with friends and family and not have to worry that she’ll be a breakthrough case. She wants to go grocery shopping again and “not panic and leave the store after five minutes.” She’d love to feel free to travel, she said.

“While I understand I still need to be cautious, I am hopeful for the peace of mind and greater freedom a third shot can provide,” Ms. Braaten said.
 

More boosters on the way?

In the second half of the meeting, the CDC also signaled that it was considering the use of boosters for people whose immunity might have waned in the months since they had completed their vaccine series, particularly seniors. About 75% of people hospitalized with vaccine breakthrough cases are over age 65, according to CDC data.

Those considerations are becoming more urgent as the Delta variant continues to pummel less vaccinated states and counties.

In its presentation to the ACIP, Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID Response Team, highlighted data from Canada, Israel, Qatar, and the United Kingdom showing that, while the Pfizer vaccine was still highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and death, it’s far less likely when faced with Delta to prevent an infection that causes symptoms.

In Israel, Pfizer’s vaccine prevented symptoms an average of 41% of the time. In Qatar, which is also using the Moderna vaccine, Pfizer’s prevented symptomatic infections with Delta about 54% of the time compared with 85% with Moderna’s.

Dr. Scobie noted that Pfizer’s waning efficacy may have something to do with the fact that it uses a lower dosage than Moderna’s. Pfizer’s recommended dosing interval is also shorter – 3 weeks compared with 4 weeks for Moderna’s. Stretching the time between shots has been shown to boost vaccine effectiveness, she said.

New data from the Mayo clinic, published ahead of peer review, also suggest that Pfizer’s protection may be fading more quickly than Moderna’s. 

In February, both shots were nearly 100% effective at preventing the SARS-CoV-2 infection, but by July, against Delta, Pfizer’s efficacy had dropped to somewhere between 13% and 62%, while Moderna’s was still effective at preventing infection between 58% and 87% of the time.

In July, Pfizer’s was between 24% and 94% effective at preventing hospitalization with a COVID-19 infection and Moderna’s was between 33% and 96% effective at preventing hospitalization.

While that may sound like cause for concern, Dr. Scobie noted that, as of August 2, severe COVD-19 outcomes after vaccination are still very rare. Among 164 million fully vaccinated people in the United States there have been about 7,000 hospitalizations and 1,500 deaths; nearly three out of four of these have been in people over the age of 65.

The ACIP will next meet on August 24 to focus solely on the COVID-19 vaccines.

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