Clinical Topics & News

In a small randomized controlled trial of patients with type 2 diabetes in China, close to half of those who followed a novel intermittent fasting program for 3 months had diabetes remission (A1c less than 6.5% without taking antidiabetic drugs) that persisted for 1 year.

Importantly, “this study was performed under real-life conditions, and the intervention was delivered by trained nurses in primary care rather than by specialized staff at a research institute, making it a more practical and achievable way to manage” type 2 diabetes, the authors report.

Moreover, 65% of the patients in the intervention group who achieved diabetes remission had had diabetes for more than 6 years, which “suggests the possibility of remission for patients with longer duration” of diabetes, they note.

©Thinkstock

‘Excellent outcome’

Invited to comment, Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, agreed that the study indicates that intermittent fasting works for diabetes remission.

“We know that diabetes remission is possible with calorie restriction and subsequent weight loss, and intermittent fasting is just one of the many [dietary] approaches that may be suitable, appealing, and sustainable to some individuals, and usually results in calorie restriction and therefore weight loss,” she said.

The most studied types of intermittent fasting diets are alternate-day fasting, the 5:2 diet, and time-restricted consumption, Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

This study presented a novel type of intermittent fasting, she noted. The intervention consisted of 6 cycles (3 months) of 5 fasting days followed by 10 ad libitum days, and then 3 months of follow-up (with no fasting days).

After 3 months of the intervention plus 3 months of follow-up, 47% of the 36 patients in the intervention group achieved diabetes remission (with a mean A1c of 5.66%), compared with only 2.8% of the 36 patients in the control group.

At 12 months, 44% of patients in the intervention group had sustained diabetes remission (with a mean A1c of 6.33%).

This was “an excellent outcome,” said Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a co-author of an international consensus statement that defined diabetes remission.

On average, patients in the intermittent fasting group lost 5.93 kg (13.0 lb) in 3 months, which was sustained over 12 months. “The large amount of weight reduction is key to continuing to achieve diabetes remission,” she noted.

This contrasted with an average weight loss of just 0.27 kg (0.6 lb) in the control group.

Participants who were prescribed fewer antidiabetic medications were more likely to achieve diabetes remission. The researchers acknowledge that the study was not blinded, and they did not record physical activity (although participants were encouraged to maintain their usual physical activity).

This was a small study, Dr. Rothberg acknowledged. The researchers did not specify which specific antidiabetic drugs patients were taking, and they did not determine waist or hip circumference or assess lipids.

The diet was culturally sensitive, appropriate, and feasible in this Chinese population and would not be generalizable to non-Asians.

Nevertheless, a similar approach could be used in any population if the diet is tailored to the individual, according to Dr. Rothberg. Importantly, patients would need to receive guidance from a dietician to make sure their diet comprises all the necessary micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals on fasting days, and they would need to maintain a relatively balanced diet and not gorge themselves on feast days. 

“I think we should campaign widely about lifestyle approaches to achieve diabetes remission,” she urged.
 

72 patients with diabetes for an average of 6.6 years

“Despite a widespread public consensus that [type 2 diabetes] is irreversible and requires drug treatment escalation, there is some evidence of the possibility of remission,” Dr. Yang and colleagues write in their article.

They aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intermittent fasting for diabetes remission and the durability of diabetes remission at 1 year.

Diabetes remission was defined having a stable A1c less than 6.5% for at least 3 months after discontinuing all antidiabetic medications, confirmed in at least annual A1c measurements (according to a 2021 consensus statement initiated by the American Diabetes Association).

Between 2019 and 2020, the researchers enrolled 72 participants aged 38-72 years who had had type 2 diabetes (duration 1 to 11 years) and a body mass index (BMI) of 19.1-30.4 kg/m². Patients were randomized 1:1 to the intermittent fasting group or control group.

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Patients were a mean age of 53 years and roughly 60% were men. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m², a mean duration of diabetes of 6.6 years, and a mean A1c of 7.6%, and they were taking an average of 1.8 glucose-lowering medications.  

On fasting days, patients in the intervention group received a Chinese Medical Nutrition Therapy kit that provided approximately 840 kcal/day (46% carbohydrates, 46% fat, 8% protein). The kit included a breakfast of a fruit and vegetable gruel, lunch of a solid beverage plus a nutritional rice composite, and dinner of a solid beverage and a meal replacement biscuit, which participants reconstituted by mixing with boiling water. They were allowed to consume noncaloric beverages.

On nonfasting days, patients chose foods ad libitum based on the 2017 Dietary Guidelines for Diabetes in China, which recommend approximately 50%-65% of total energy intake from carbohydrates, 15%-20% from protein, and 20%-30% from fat, and had greater than or equal to 5 g fiber per serving.

Patients in the control group chose foods ad libitum from the dietary guidelines during the entire study.

The study received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a small randomized controlled trial of patients with type 2 diabetes in China, close to half of those who followed a novel intermittent fasting program for 3 months had diabetes remission (A1c less than 6.5% without taking antidiabetic drugs) that persisted for 1 year.

Importantly, “this study was performed under real-life conditions, and the intervention was delivered by trained nurses in primary care rather than by specialized staff at a research institute, making it a more practical and achievable way to manage” type 2 diabetes, the authors report.

Moreover, 65% of the patients in the intervention group who achieved diabetes remission had had diabetes for more than 6 years, which “suggests the possibility of remission for patients with longer duration” of diabetes, they note.

©Thinkstock

‘Excellent outcome’

Invited to comment, Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, agreed that the study indicates that intermittent fasting works for diabetes remission.

“We know that diabetes remission is possible with calorie restriction and subsequent weight loss, and intermittent fasting is just one of the many [dietary] approaches that may be suitable, appealing, and sustainable to some individuals, and usually results in calorie restriction and therefore weight loss,” she said.

The most studied types of intermittent fasting diets are alternate-day fasting, the 5:2 diet, and time-restricted consumption, Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

This study presented a novel type of intermittent fasting, she noted. The intervention consisted of 6 cycles (3 months) of 5 fasting days followed by 10 ad libitum days, and then 3 months of follow-up (with no fasting days).

After 3 months of the intervention plus 3 months of follow-up, 47% of the 36 patients in the intervention group achieved diabetes remission (with a mean A1c of 5.66%), compared with only 2.8% of the 36 patients in the control group.

At 12 months, 44% of patients in the intervention group had sustained diabetes remission (with a mean A1c of 6.33%).

This was “an excellent outcome,” said Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a co-author of an international consensus statement that defined diabetes remission.

On average, patients in the intermittent fasting group lost 5.93 kg (13.0 lb) in 3 months, which was sustained over 12 months. “The large amount of weight reduction is key to continuing to achieve diabetes remission,” she noted.

This contrasted with an average weight loss of just 0.27 kg (0.6 lb) in the control group.

Participants who were prescribed fewer antidiabetic medications were more likely to achieve diabetes remission. The researchers acknowledge that the study was not blinded, and they did not record physical activity (although participants were encouraged to maintain their usual physical activity).

This was a small study, Dr. Rothberg acknowledged. The researchers did not specify which specific antidiabetic drugs patients were taking, and they did not determine waist or hip circumference or assess lipids.

The diet was culturally sensitive, appropriate, and feasible in this Chinese population and would not be generalizable to non-Asians.

Nevertheless, a similar approach could be used in any population if the diet is tailored to the individual, according to Dr. Rothberg. Importantly, patients would need to receive guidance from a dietician to make sure their diet comprises all the necessary micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals on fasting days, and they would need to maintain a relatively balanced diet and not gorge themselves on feast days. 

“I think we should campaign widely about lifestyle approaches to achieve diabetes remission,” she urged.
 

72 patients with diabetes for an average of 6.6 years

“Despite a widespread public consensus that [type 2 diabetes] is irreversible and requires drug treatment escalation, there is some evidence of the possibility of remission,” Dr. Yang and colleagues write in their article.

They aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intermittent fasting for diabetes remission and the durability of diabetes remission at 1 year.

Diabetes remission was defined having a stable A1c less than 6.5% for at least 3 months after discontinuing all antidiabetic medications, confirmed in at least annual A1c measurements (according to a 2021 consensus statement initiated by the American Diabetes Association).

Between 2019 and 2020, the researchers enrolled 72 participants aged 38-72 years who had had type 2 diabetes (duration 1 to 11 years) and a body mass index (BMI) of 19.1-30.4 kg/m². Patients were randomized 1:1 to the intermittent fasting group or control group.

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Patients were a mean age of 53 years and roughly 60% were men. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m², a mean duration of diabetes of 6.6 years, and a mean A1c of 7.6%, and they were taking an average of 1.8 glucose-lowering medications.  

On fasting days, patients in the intervention group received a Chinese Medical Nutrition Therapy kit that provided approximately 840 kcal/day (46% carbohydrates, 46% fat, 8% protein). The kit included a breakfast of a fruit and vegetable gruel, lunch of a solid beverage plus a nutritional rice composite, and dinner of a solid beverage and a meal replacement biscuit, which participants reconstituted by mixing with boiling water. They were allowed to consume noncaloric beverages.

On nonfasting days, patients chose foods ad libitum based on the 2017 Dietary Guidelines for Diabetes in China, which recommend approximately 50%-65% of total energy intake from carbohydrates, 15%-20% from protein, and 20%-30% from fat, and had greater than or equal to 5 g fiber per serving.

Patients in the control group chose foods ad libitum from the dietary guidelines during the entire study.

The study received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a small randomized controlled trial of patients with type 2 diabetes in China, close to half of those who followed a novel intermittent fasting program for 3 months had diabetes remission (A1c less than 6.5% without taking antidiabetic drugs) that persisted for 1 year.

Importantly, “this study was performed under real-life conditions, and the intervention was delivered by trained nurses in primary care rather than by specialized staff at a research institute, making it a more practical and achievable way to manage” type 2 diabetes, the authors report.

Moreover, 65% of the patients in the intervention group who achieved diabetes remission had had diabetes for more than 6 years, which “suggests the possibility of remission for patients with longer duration” of diabetes, they note.

©Thinkstock

‘Excellent outcome’

Invited to comment, Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, agreed that the study indicates that intermittent fasting works for diabetes remission.

“We know that diabetes remission is possible with calorie restriction and subsequent weight loss, and intermittent fasting is just one of the many [dietary] approaches that may be suitable, appealing, and sustainable to some individuals, and usually results in calorie restriction and therefore weight loss,” she said.

The most studied types of intermittent fasting diets are alternate-day fasting, the 5:2 diet, and time-restricted consumption, Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

This study presented a novel type of intermittent fasting, she noted. The intervention consisted of 6 cycles (3 months) of 5 fasting days followed by 10 ad libitum days, and then 3 months of follow-up (with no fasting days).

After 3 months of the intervention plus 3 months of follow-up, 47% of the 36 patients in the intervention group achieved diabetes remission (with a mean A1c of 5.66%), compared with only 2.8% of the 36 patients in the control group.

At 12 months, 44% of patients in the intervention group had sustained diabetes remission (with a mean A1c of 6.33%).

This was “an excellent outcome,” said Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a co-author of an international consensus statement that defined diabetes remission.

On average, patients in the intermittent fasting group lost 5.93 kg (13.0 lb) in 3 months, which was sustained over 12 months. “The large amount of weight reduction is key to continuing to achieve diabetes remission,” she noted.

This contrasted with an average weight loss of just 0.27 kg (0.6 lb) in the control group.

Participants who were prescribed fewer antidiabetic medications were more likely to achieve diabetes remission. The researchers acknowledge that the study was not blinded, and they did not record physical activity (although participants were encouraged to maintain their usual physical activity).

This was a small study, Dr. Rothberg acknowledged. The researchers did not specify which specific antidiabetic drugs patients were taking, and they did not determine waist or hip circumference or assess lipids.

The diet was culturally sensitive, appropriate, and feasible in this Chinese population and would not be generalizable to non-Asians.

Nevertheless, a similar approach could be used in any population if the diet is tailored to the individual, according to Dr. Rothberg. Importantly, patients would need to receive guidance from a dietician to make sure their diet comprises all the necessary micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals on fasting days, and they would need to maintain a relatively balanced diet and not gorge themselves on feast days. 

“I think we should campaign widely about lifestyle approaches to achieve diabetes remission,” she urged.
 

72 patients with diabetes for an average of 6.6 years

“Despite a widespread public consensus that [type 2 diabetes] is irreversible and requires drug treatment escalation, there is some evidence of the possibility of remission,” Dr. Yang and colleagues write in their article.

They aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intermittent fasting for diabetes remission and the durability of diabetes remission at 1 year.

Diabetes remission was defined having a stable A1c less than 6.5% for at least 3 months after discontinuing all antidiabetic medications, confirmed in at least annual A1c measurements (according to a 2021 consensus statement initiated by the American Diabetes Association).

Between 2019 and 2020, the researchers enrolled 72 participants aged 38-72 years who had had type 2 diabetes (duration 1 to 11 years) and a body mass index (BMI) of 19.1-30.4 kg/m². Patients were randomized 1:1 to the intermittent fasting group or control group.

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Patients were a mean age of 53 years and roughly 60% were men. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m², a mean duration of diabetes of 6.6 years, and a mean A1c of 7.6%, and they were taking an average of 1.8 glucose-lowering medications.  

On fasting days, patients in the intervention group received a Chinese Medical Nutrition Therapy kit that provided approximately 840 kcal/day (46% carbohydrates, 46% fat, 8% protein). The kit included a breakfast of a fruit and vegetable gruel, lunch of a solid beverage plus a nutritional rice composite, and dinner of a solid beverage and a meal replacement biscuit, which participants reconstituted by mixing with boiling water. They were allowed to consume noncaloric beverages.

On nonfasting days, patients chose foods ad libitum based on the 2017 Dietary Guidelines for Diabetes in China, which recommend approximately 50%-65% of total energy intake from carbohydrates, 15%-20% from protein, and 20%-30% from fat, and had greater than or equal to 5 g fiber per serving.

Patients in the control group chose foods ad libitum from the dietary guidelines during the entire study.

The study received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The number of Americans hospitalized because of the flu has hit the highest levels the country has seen in at least a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
 

But the number of deaths and outpatient visits for flu or flu-like illnesses was down slightly from the week before, the CDC said in its weekly FluView report.

There were almost 26,000 new hospital admissions involving laboratory-confirmed influenza over those 7 days, up by over 31% from the previous week, based on data from 5,000 hospitals in the HHS Protect system, which tracks and shares COVID-19 data.

The cumulative hospitalization rate for the 2022-2023 season is 26.0 per 100,000 people, the highest seen at this time of year since 2010-2011, the CDC said, based on data from its Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which includes hospitals in select counties in 13 states.

At this point in the 2019-2020 season, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the cumulative rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people, the CDC’s data show.

On the positive side, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness dropped slightly to 7.2%, from 7.5% the week before. But these cases from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network are not laboratory confirmed, so the data could include people with the flu, COVID-19, or respiratory syncytial virus. 

The number of confirmed flu deaths for the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 also fell slightly from the last full week of November, 246 vs. 255, but the number of pediatric deaths rose from 2 to 7, and total deaths in children are already up to 21 for 2022-2023. That’s compared to 44 that were reported during all of the 2021-2022 season, the CDC said.

“So far this season, there have been at least 13 million illnesses, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 7,300 deaths from flu,” the agency estimated.

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

The number of Americans hospitalized because of the flu has hit the highest levels the country has seen in at least a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
 

But the number of deaths and outpatient visits for flu or flu-like illnesses was down slightly from the week before, the CDC said in its weekly FluView report.

There were almost 26,000 new hospital admissions involving laboratory-confirmed influenza over those 7 days, up by over 31% from the previous week, based on data from 5,000 hospitals in the HHS Protect system, which tracks and shares COVID-19 data.

The cumulative hospitalization rate for the 2022-2023 season is 26.0 per 100,000 people, the highest seen at this time of year since 2010-2011, the CDC said, based on data from its Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which includes hospitals in select counties in 13 states.

At this point in the 2019-2020 season, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the cumulative rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people, the CDC’s data show.

On the positive side, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness dropped slightly to 7.2%, from 7.5% the week before. But these cases from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network are not laboratory confirmed, so the data could include people with the flu, COVID-19, or respiratory syncytial virus. 

The number of confirmed flu deaths for the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 also fell slightly from the last full week of November, 246 vs. 255, but the number of pediatric deaths rose from 2 to 7, and total deaths in children are already up to 21 for 2022-2023. That’s compared to 44 that were reported during all of the 2021-2022 season, the CDC said.

“So far this season, there have been at least 13 million illnesses, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 7,300 deaths from flu,” the agency estimated.

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

The number of Americans hospitalized because of the flu has hit the highest levels the country has seen in at least a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
 

But the number of deaths and outpatient visits for flu or flu-like illnesses was down slightly from the week before, the CDC said in its weekly FluView report.

There were almost 26,000 new hospital admissions involving laboratory-confirmed influenza over those 7 days, up by over 31% from the previous week, based on data from 5,000 hospitals in the HHS Protect system, which tracks and shares COVID-19 data.

The cumulative hospitalization rate for the 2022-2023 season is 26.0 per 100,000 people, the highest seen at this time of year since 2010-2011, the CDC said, based on data from its Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which includes hospitals in select counties in 13 states.

At this point in the 2019-2020 season, just before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the cumulative rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people, the CDC’s data show.

On the positive side, the proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness dropped slightly to 7.2%, from 7.5% the week before. But these cases from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network are not laboratory confirmed, so the data could include people with the flu, COVID-19, or respiratory syncytial virus. 

The number of confirmed flu deaths for the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3 also fell slightly from the last full week of November, 246 vs. 255, but the number of pediatric deaths rose from 2 to 7, and total deaths in children are already up to 21 for 2022-2023. That’s compared to 44 that were reported during all of the 2021-2022 season, the CDC said.

“So far this season, there have been at least 13 million illnesses, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 7,300 deaths from flu,” the agency estimated.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

It was the last monoclonal antibody treatment standing. But less than 10 months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave bebtelovimab its emergency use authorization (EUA) to fight COVID-19, it earlier this month de-authorized it, just as it had for other monoclonal antibody treatments, and for the same reason: The treatments were outwitted by the viral mutations.
 

Bebtelovimab couldn’t neutralize the Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the cause of nearly 60% of COVID cases nationally as of November 30.

Next on the chopping block, some predict, will be Evusheld, the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab given as a preventive monoclonal antibody to people who are immunocompromised and at high risk of contracting COVID and to those who can’t take the vaccine. In October, the FDA warned that Evusheld was not neutralizing circulating COVID variants.

As the options for treating and preventing COVID decline, will companies rally quickly to develop new ones, or cut their losses in developing treatments that may work for only a few months, given the speed of viral mutations?

But although monoclonal antibody treatments are off the table, at least for now, antiviral drugs – including Paxlovid – are still very much available, and some say underused.

Others suggest it’s time to resurrect interest in convalescent plasma, a treatment used early in the pandemic before drugs or vaccines were here and still authorized for use in those who are immunosuppressed or receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

And on the prevention front, staying up to date with booster vaccines, masking, and taking other precautions should be stressed more, others say, regardless of the number of treatment options, and especially now, as cases rise and people gather for the winter holidays.
 

‘A major setback’

The bebtelovimab de-authorization was “a major setback,” but an understandable one, said Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, professor and chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “Monoclonal antibodies are great drugs. We are in an unfortunate situation in that they are vulnerable to changes in the virus” and can’t offer long-lasting protection.

Supplies of bebtelovimab will be retained, according to the FDA, in case variants susceptible to it return.

“What happened to bebtelovimab is no surprise,” agreed Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “This is what is going to happen when you are targeting a virus that mutates a lot.”

Monoclonal antibodies work by binding to the spike protein on the virus surface to prevent it from entering cells.

However, Dr. Adalja doesn’t view the disappearance of monoclonal antibody treatments as a major setback. Monoclonal antibodies were not the primary way COVID was treated, he said.

While he does believe it’s important that more monoclonal antibody treatments be developed, “I think it’s important to remember we still have Paxlovid while everyone is lamenting the loss of bebtelovimab.’’
 

Antivirals: What’s here, what’s coming

Compared with monoclonal antibodies, “Paxlovid remains a much easier drug to give,” Dr. Adalja told this news organization, because it is taken orally, not intravenously.

And it’s effective. In a recent study, researchers found that adults diagnosed with COVID given Paxlovid within 5 days of diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those not given it. Another study shows it could also reduce a person’s risk of developing long COVID by 26%.

Paxlovid is underused, Dr. Adalja said, partly because the rebound potential got more press than the effectiveness. When a celebrity got rebound from Paxlovid, he said, that would make the news, overshadowing the research on its effectiveness.

Besides Paxlovid, the antivirals remdesivir (Veklury), given intravenously for 3 days, and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), taken orally, are also still available. Antivirals work by targeting specific parts of the virus to prevent it from multiplying.

In the lab, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and another antiviral, nirmatrelvir, all appear to be effective against both BQ.1.1 (a BA.5 subvariant) and XBB (a BA.2 subvariant), both rapidly rising in the United States, according to a report last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers also tested several monoclonal antibodies and found they did not neutralize either of the subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.

A new oral antiviral, Xocova (ensitrelvir fumaric acid), from Japanese manufacturer Shionogi, received emergency approval in Japan on November 22. It’s taken once a day for 5 days. The goal is to expand access to it globally, according to the company.

Pardes Biosciences launched a phase 2 trial in September for its oral antiviral drug (PBI-0451), under study as a treatment and preventive for COVID. It expects data by the first quarter of 2023.

Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, has partnered with Clear Creek Bio to develop another oral antiviral COVID drug.
 

Other approaches

A receptor protein known as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is the main “doorway” that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists are developing a “decoy” drug that works by mimicking the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells; when the virus tries to bind to it, the spike protein is destroyed. Human trials have not yet started.

Other researchers are investigating whether an already-approved drug used to treat a liver disease, Actigall (UDCA/ursodeoxycholic acid), could protect against COVID infection by reducing ACE2.

So far, the researchers have found in early research that people taking UDCA for liver conditions were less likely than those not taking the drug to have severe COVID. They also found that UDCA reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lungs maintained outside the body.
 

Monoclonal antibody treatments?

After the FDA decision to withdraw the bebtelovimab EUA, which Eli Lilly said it agreed with, the company issued a statement, promising it wasn’t giving up on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“Lilly will continue to search and evaluate monoclonal antibodies to identify potential candidates for clinical development against new variants,” it read in part.

AstraZeneca, which makes Evusheld, is also continuing to work on monoclonal antibody development. According to a spokesperson, “We are also developing a new long-acting antibody combination – AZD5156 – which has been shown in the lab to neutralize emerging new variants and all known variants to date. We are working to accelerate the development of AZD5156 to make it available at the end of 2023.”

The AstraZeneca spokesperson said he could share no more information about what the combination would include.
 

A convalescent plasma comeback?

Although Paxlovid can help, there are many contraindications to it, such as drug-drug interactions, Dr. Casadevall told this news organization. And now that the monoclonal antibody treatments have been paused, convalescent plasma “is the only antibody-based therapy that is reliably available. Convalescent plasma includes thousands of different antibodies.”

With his colleagues, Dr. Casadevall evaluated plasma samples from 740 patients. Some had received booster vaccines and been infected with Omicron, others had received boosters and not been infected, and still others had not been vaccinated and became infected.

In a report (not yet peer-reviewed), they found the plasma from those who had been infected or boosted within the past 6 months neutralized the new Omicron variants BQ.1.1, XBB.1, and BF.7.
 

A push for boosters, masks

To get through the coming months, taking precautions like masking and distancing and staying up to date on booster vaccinations, especially for older adults, can make a difference, other experts say.

In a Twitter thread in early December, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, urged people to take COVID seriously as holiday parties and gatherings occur.

“The single most impactful thing you can do is get your bivalent booster,” he tweeted, as well as give your kids the booster, citing preliminary research that the bivalent mRNA booster broadens immunity against the Omicron subvariants.

For seniors, he said, ‘‘if you get breakthrough COVID, [it’s] really important to get Paxlovid.” Masks will help not only for COVID but also influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other conditions.

Mitigation measures have largely been abandoned, according to Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and on his Twitter feed, he reminds people about masking and urges people to get the bivalent booster.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Dec. 8, only 13.5% of people aged 5 and older have gotten an updated booster, despite research that shows an increase in antibodies to BQ.1.1. Recent research has found that the bivalent booster increases antibodies to BQ.1.1 by up to 10-fold, Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja is on advisory boards for Shionogi, GSK, and Pardes. Dr. Casadevall reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

It was the last monoclonal antibody treatment standing. But less than 10 months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave bebtelovimab its emergency use authorization (EUA) to fight COVID-19, it earlier this month de-authorized it, just as it had for other monoclonal antibody treatments, and for the same reason: The treatments were outwitted by the viral mutations.
 

Bebtelovimab couldn’t neutralize the Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the cause of nearly 60% of COVID cases nationally as of November 30.

Next on the chopping block, some predict, will be Evusheld, the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab given as a preventive monoclonal antibody to people who are immunocompromised and at high risk of contracting COVID and to those who can’t take the vaccine. In October, the FDA warned that Evusheld was not neutralizing circulating COVID variants.

As the options for treating and preventing COVID decline, will companies rally quickly to develop new ones, or cut their losses in developing treatments that may work for only a few months, given the speed of viral mutations?

But although monoclonal antibody treatments are off the table, at least for now, antiviral drugs – including Paxlovid – are still very much available, and some say underused.

Others suggest it’s time to resurrect interest in convalescent plasma, a treatment used early in the pandemic before drugs or vaccines were here and still authorized for use in those who are immunosuppressed or receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

And on the prevention front, staying up to date with booster vaccines, masking, and taking other precautions should be stressed more, others say, regardless of the number of treatment options, and especially now, as cases rise and people gather for the winter holidays.
 

‘A major setback’

The bebtelovimab de-authorization was “a major setback,” but an understandable one, said Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, professor and chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “Monoclonal antibodies are great drugs. We are in an unfortunate situation in that they are vulnerable to changes in the virus” and can’t offer long-lasting protection.

Supplies of bebtelovimab will be retained, according to the FDA, in case variants susceptible to it return.

“What happened to bebtelovimab is no surprise,” agreed Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “This is what is going to happen when you are targeting a virus that mutates a lot.”

Monoclonal antibodies work by binding to the spike protein on the virus surface to prevent it from entering cells.

However, Dr. Adalja doesn’t view the disappearance of monoclonal antibody treatments as a major setback. Monoclonal antibodies were not the primary way COVID was treated, he said.

While he does believe it’s important that more monoclonal antibody treatments be developed, “I think it’s important to remember we still have Paxlovid while everyone is lamenting the loss of bebtelovimab.’’
 

Antivirals: What’s here, what’s coming

Compared with monoclonal antibodies, “Paxlovid remains a much easier drug to give,” Dr. Adalja told this news organization, because it is taken orally, not intravenously.

And it’s effective. In a recent study, researchers found that adults diagnosed with COVID given Paxlovid within 5 days of diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those not given it. Another study shows it could also reduce a person’s risk of developing long COVID by 26%.

Paxlovid is underused, Dr. Adalja said, partly because the rebound potential got more press than the effectiveness. When a celebrity got rebound from Paxlovid, he said, that would make the news, overshadowing the research on its effectiveness.

Besides Paxlovid, the antivirals remdesivir (Veklury), given intravenously for 3 days, and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), taken orally, are also still available. Antivirals work by targeting specific parts of the virus to prevent it from multiplying.

In the lab, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and another antiviral, nirmatrelvir, all appear to be effective against both BQ.1.1 (a BA.5 subvariant) and XBB (a BA.2 subvariant), both rapidly rising in the United States, according to a report last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers also tested several monoclonal antibodies and found they did not neutralize either of the subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.

A new oral antiviral, Xocova (ensitrelvir fumaric acid), from Japanese manufacturer Shionogi, received emergency approval in Japan on November 22. It’s taken once a day for 5 days. The goal is to expand access to it globally, according to the company.

Pardes Biosciences launched a phase 2 trial in September for its oral antiviral drug (PBI-0451), under study as a treatment and preventive for COVID. It expects data by the first quarter of 2023.

Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, has partnered with Clear Creek Bio to develop another oral antiviral COVID drug.
 

Other approaches

A receptor protein known as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is the main “doorway” that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists are developing a “decoy” drug that works by mimicking the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells; when the virus tries to bind to it, the spike protein is destroyed. Human trials have not yet started.

Other researchers are investigating whether an already-approved drug used to treat a liver disease, Actigall (UDCA/ursodeoxycholic acid), could protect against COVID infection by reducing ACE2.

So far, the researchers have found in early research that people taking UDCA for liver conditions were less likely than those not taking the drug to have severe COVID. They also found that UDCA reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lungs maintained outside the body.
 

Monoclonal antibody treatments?

After the FDA decision to withdraw the bebtelovimab EUA, which Eli Lilly said it agreed with, the company issued a statement, promising it wasn’t giving up on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“Lilly will continue to search and evaluate monoclonal antibodies to identify potential candidates for clinical development against new variants,” it read in part.

AstraZeneca, which makes Evusheld, is also continuing to work on monoclonal antibody development. According to a spokesperson, “We are also developing a new long-acting antibody combination – AZD5156 – which has been shown in the lab to neutralize emerging new variants and all known variants to date. We are working to accelerate the development of AZD5156 to make it available at the end of 2023.”

The AstraZeneca spokesperson said he could share no more information about what the combination would include.
 

A convalescent plasma comeback?

Although Paxlovid can help, there are many contraindications to it, such as drug-drug interactions, Dr. Casadevall told this news organization. And now that the monoclonal antibody treatments have been paused, convalescent plasma “is the only antibody-based therapy that is reliably available. Convalescent plasma includes thousands of different antibodies.”

With his colleagues, Dr. Casadevall evaluated plasma samples from 740 patients. Some had received booster vaccines and been infected with Omicron, others had received boosters and not been infected, and still others had not been vaccinated and became infected.

In a report (not yet peer-reviewed), they found the plasma from those who had been infected or boosted within the past 6 months neutralized the new Omicron variants BQ.1.1, XBB.1, and BF.7.
 

A push for boosters, masks

To get through the coming months, taking precautions like masking and distancing and staying up to date on booster vaccinations, especially for older adults, can make a difference, other experts say.

In a Twitter thread in early December, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, urged people to take COVID seriously as holiday parties and gatherings occur.

“The single most impactful thing you can do is get your bivalent booster,” he tweeted, as well as give your kids the booster, citing preliminary research that the bivalent mRNA booster broadens immunity against the Omicron subvariants.

For seniors, he said, ‘‘if you get breakthrough COVID, [it’s] really important to get Paxlovid.” Masks will help not only for COVID but also influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other conditions.

Mitigation measures have largely been abandoned, according to Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and on his Twitter feed, he reminds people about masking and urges people to get the bivalent booster.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Dec. 8, only 13.5% of people aged 5 and older have gotten an updated booster, despite research that shows an increase in antibodies to BQ.1.1. Recent research has found that the bivalent booster increases antibodies to BQ.1.1 by up to 10-fold, Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja is on advisory boards for Shionogi, GSK, and Pardes. Dr. Casadevall reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

It was the last monoclonal antibody treatment standing. But less than 10 months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave bebtelovimab its emergency use authorization (EUA) to fight COVID-19, it earlier this month de-authorized it, just as it had for other monoclonal antibody treatments, and for the same reason: The treatments were outwitted by the viral mutations.
 

Bebtelovimab couldn’t neutralize the Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1, the cause of nearly 60% of COVID cases nationally as of November 30.

Next on the chopping block, some predict, will be Evusheld, the combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab given as a preventive monoclonal antibody to people who are immunocompromised and at high risk of contracting COVID and to those who can’t take the vaccine. In October, the FDA warned that Evusheld was not neutralizing circulating COVID variants.

As the options for treating and preventing COVID decline, will companies rally quickly to develop new ones, or cut their losses in developing treatments that may work for only a few months, given the speed of viral mutations?

But although monoclonal antibody treatments are off the table, at least for now, antiviral drugs – including Paxlovid – are still very much available, and some say underused.

Others suggest it’s time to resurrect interest in convalescent plasma, a treatment used early in the pandemic before drugs or vaccines were here and still authorized for use in those who are immunosuppressed or receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

And on the prevention front, staying up to date with booster vaccines, masking, and taking other precautions should be stressed more, others say, regardless of the number of treatment options, and especially now, as cases rise and people gather for the winter holidays.
 

‘A major setback’

The bebtelovimab de-authorization was “a major setback,” but an understandable one, said Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, professor and chair of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “Monoclonal antibodies are great drugs. We are in an unfortunate situation in that they are vulnerable to changes in the virus” and can’t offer long-lasting protection.

Supplies of bebtelovimab will be retained, according to the FDA, in case variants susceptible to it return.

“What happened to bebtelovimab is no surprise,” agreed Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “This is what is going to happen when you are targeting a virus that mutates a lot.”

Monoclonal antibodies work by binding to the spike protein on the virus surface to prevent it from entering cells.

However, Dr. Adalja doesn’t view the disappearance of monoclonal antibody treatments as a major setback. Monoclonal antibodies were not the primary way COVID was treated, he said.

While he does believe it’s important that more monoclonal antibody treatments be developed, “I think it’s important to remember we still have Paxlovid while everyone is lamenting the loss of bebtelovimab.’’
 

Antivirals: What’s here, what’s coming

Compared with monoclonal antibodies, “Paxlovid remains a much easier drug to give,” Dr. Adalja told this news organization, because it is taken orally, not intravenously.

And it’s effective. In a recent study, researchers found that adults diagnosed with COVID given Paxlovid within 5 days of diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those not given it. Another study shows it could also reduce a person’s risk of developing long COVID by 26%.

Paxlovid is underused, Dr. Adalja said, partly because the rebound potential got more press than the effectiveness. When a celebrity got rebound from Paxlovid, he said, that would make the news, overshadowing the research on its effectiveness.

Besides Paxlovid, the antivirals remdesivir (Veklury), given intravenously for 3 days, and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), taken orally, are also still available. Antivirals work by targeting specific parts of the virus to prevent it from multiplying.

In the lab, remdesivir, molnupiravir, and another antiviral, nirmatrelvir, all appear to be effective against both BQ.1.1 (a BA.5 subvariant) and XBB (a BA.2 subvariant), both rapidly rising in the United States, according to a report last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers also tested several monoclonal antibodies and found they did not neutralize either of the subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.

A new oral antiviral, Xocova (ensitrelvir fumaric acid), from Japanese manufacturer Shionogi, received emergency approval in Japan on November 22. It’s taken once a day for 5 days. The goal is to expand access to it globally, according to the company.

Pardes Biosciences launched a phase 2 trial in September for its oral antiviral drug (PBI-0451), under study as a treatment and preventive for COVID. It expects data by the first quarter of 2023.

Pfizer, which makes Paxlovid, has partnered with Clear Creek Bio to develop another oral antiviral COVID drug.
 

Other approaches

A receptor protein known as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) is the main “doorway” that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter and infect cells.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists are developing a “decoy” drug that works by mimicking the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells; when the virus tries to bind to it, the spike protein is destroyed. Human trials have not yet started.

Other researchers are investigating whether an already-approved drug used to treat a liver disease, Actigall (UDCA/ursodeoxycholic acid), could protect against COVID infection by reducing ACE2.

So far, the researchers have found in early research that people taking UDCA for liver conditions were less likely than those not taking the drug to have severe COVID. They also found that UDCA reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in human lungs maintained outside the body.
 

Monoclonal antibody treatments?

After the FDA decision to withdraw the bebtelovimab EUA, which Eli Lilly said it agreed with, the company issued a statement, promising it wasn’t giving up on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“Lilly will continue to search and evaluate monoclonal antibodies to identify potential candidates for clinical development against new variants,” it read in part.

AstraZeneca, which makes Evusheld, is also continuing to work on monoclonal antibody development. According to a spokesperson, “We are also developing a new long-acting antibody combination – AZD5156 – which has been shown in the lab to neutralize emerging new variants and all known variants to date. We are working to accelerate the development of AZD5156 to make it available at the end of 2023.”

The AstraZeneca spokesperson said he could share no more information about what the combination would include.
 

A convalescent plasma comeback?

Although Paxlovid can help, there are many contraindications to it, such as drug-drug interactions, Dr. Casadevall told this news organization. And now that the monoclonal antibody treatments have been paused, convalescent plasma “is the only antibody-based therapy that is reliably available. Convalescent plasma includes thousands of different antibodies.”

With his colleagues, Dr. Casadevall evaluated plasma samples from 740 patients. Some had received booster vaccines and been infected with Omicron, others had received boosters and not been infected, and still others had not been vaccinated and became infected.

In a report (not yet peer-reviewed), they found the plasma from those who had been infected or boosted within the past 6 months neutralized the new Omicron variants BQ.1.1, XBB.1, and BF.7.
 

A push for boosters, masks

To get through the coming months, taking precautions like masking and distancing and staying up to date on booster vaccinations, especially for older adults, can make a difference, other experts say.

In a Twitter thread in early December, Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, urged people to take COVID seriously as holiday parties and gatherings occur.

“The single most impactful thing you can do is get your bivalent booster,” he tweeted, as well as give your kids the booster, citing preliminary research that the bivalent mRNA booster broadens immunity against the Omicron subvariants.

For seniors, he said, ‘‘if you get breakthrough COVID, [it’s] really important to get Paxlovid.” Masks will help not only for COVID but also influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other conditions.

Mitigation measures have largely been abandoned, according to Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, and on his Twitter feed, he reminds people about masking and urges people to get the bivalent booster.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of Dec. 8, only 13.5% of people aged 5 and older have gotten an updated booster, despite research that shows an increase in antibodies to BQ.1.1. Recent research has found that the bivalent booster increases antibodies to BQ.1.1 by up to 10-fold, Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja is on advisory boards for Shionogi, GSK, and Pardes. Dr. Casadevall reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

The Endocrine Society has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes who are at high risk, addressing the wide variety of treatment advances, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that have appeared since the publication of the society’s last guideline on hypoglycemia, in 2009.

“CGM and insulin pumps have been much more commonly used in the last decade among people with diabetes, including children, and there are new forms of glucagon available,” said Anthony L. McCall, MD, PhD, chair of the panel that wrote the guideline.

“We had to update our guideline to match these developments in the diabetes field,” noted Dr. McCall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in a press statement.

The new guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, addresses 10 key clinical questions regarding current issues relevant to hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in adult or pediatric patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the outpatient or inpatient setting.
 

Key guideline recommendations

The recommendations are based on factors including critical outcomes, implementation feasibility, and patient preferences.

Key guideline recommendations that are considered “strong,” based on evidence, include:

• The use of CGM rather than self-monitoring of blood glucose by fingerstick for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections. The panel underscored that “comprehensive patient education on how to use and troubleshoot CGM devices and interpret these data is critically important for maximum benefit and successful outcomes.”

The use of a structured program for patient education versus unstructured advice for adult and pediatric outpatients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy.

• Structured education on how to avoid repeated hypoglycemia is critical, and this education should be performed by experienced diabetes clinicians,” the panel asserts. “Moreover, insurance coverage for education should be available for all insulin-using patients.”
• The use of glucagon preparations that do not have to be reconstituted, as opposed to those that do (that is, available as a powder and diluent) in the treatment of outpatients with severe hypoglycemia.

Guideline recommendations that received conditional recommendations include: 

• Use of real-time CGM and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes.
• Use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.
• Use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Noting that there is “moderate-certainty” evidence for severe hypoglycemia reduction as an outcome in those using long-acting analog insulins versus human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the panel cautions that “most studies of long-acting analog insulins do not assess for significant adverse effects, including cardiovascular outcomes, and that many studies were designed to demonstrate noninferiority of analog insulin, compared with human NPH insulin.”

• Initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia: One of top three preventable adverse drug reactions

The updated guidelines are especially important considering the common incidence of hypoglycemia, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined to be one of the top 3 preventable adverse drug reactions, the panel says.

They note that between January 2007 and December 2011, emergency department visits for therapy-associated hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries resulted in more than $600 million in spending.

Meanwhile, many people with type 1 or 2 diabetes may not experience or recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia, which, in severe cases, can lead to unconsciousness or seizures, in addition to affecting quality of life, social life, work productivity, and ability to drive safely.

The key to accurate diagnosis of those patients is assessment of the three levels of hypoglycemia, described in a 2018 consensus statement:

• Level 1: Glucose less than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and greater than or equal to 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia should alert patients that they may need to ingest carbohydrate to prevent progressive hypoglycemia.
• Level 2: Glucose less than 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk for cognitive dysfunction and mortality.
• Level 3: A severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. This level of hypoglycemia is life-threatening and requires emergent treatment, typically with glucagon.

Ultimately, “new technology and medications will help reduce hypoglycemia, and [clinicians] can better treat patients now with new, easier glucagons,” Dr. McCall told this news organization.

“People with diabetes, their caregivers, and diabetes specialists will all benefit from our guideline with a better understanding of best practices and interventions,” the panel notes.
 

Disparities still exist in access to insulin pumps

Separately, new research shows that while use of insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes has grown over 20 years, there has been no improvement in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in their use in the United States. The findings are reported in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

Using data from the SEARCH for Diabetes Youth Study across four time periods between 2001 and 2019, the researchers show that by the end of the period studied, insulin pump use was 67% among non-Hispanic White people, 41% among Hispanic people, 29% among Black people, and 46% among other racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 70% of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher used the pumps, compared with 56% among those with some college, 40% among holders of high school degrees, and 18% among those with no high school education. By income level, 74% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 66% with $50,000-$74,999, 51% with $25,000-$49,999, and 41% with less than $25,000 used the pumps.

“Diabetes technology has numerous benefits for patients with type 1 diabetes, but the problem is that there is a huge divide in who actually has access to these technologies,” said study lead Estelle Everett, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the University of California, Los Angeles.

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

The Endocrine Society has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes who are at high risk, addressing the wide variety of treatment advances, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that have appeared since the publication of the society’s last guideline on hypoglycemia, in 2009.

“CGM and insulin pumps have been much more commonly used in the last decade among people with diabetes, including children, and there are new forms of glucagon available,” said Anthony L. McCall, MD, PhD, chair of the panel that wrote the guideline.

“We had to update our guideline to match these developments in the diabetes field,” noted Dr. McCall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in a press statement.

The new guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, addresses 10 key clinical questions regarding current issues relevant to hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in adult or pediatric patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the outpatient or inpatient setting.
 

Key guideline recommendations

The recommendations are based on factors including critical outcomes, implementation feasibility, and patient preferences.

Key guideline recommendations that are considered “strong,” based on evidence, include:

• The use of CGM rather than self-monitoring of blood glucose by fingerstick for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections. The panel underscored that “comprehensive patient education on how to use and troubleshoot CGM devices and interpret these data is critically important for maximum benefit and successful outcomes.”

The use of a structured program for patient education versus unstructured advice for adult and pediatric outpatients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy.

• Structured education on how to avoid repeated hypoglycemia is critical, and this education should be performed by experienced diabetes clinicians,” the panel asserts. “Moreover, insurance coverage for education should be available for all insulin-using patients.”
• The use of glucagon preparations that do not have to be reconstituted, as opposed to those that do (that is, available as a powder and diluent) in the treatment of outpatients with severe hypoglycemia.

Guideline recommendations that received conditional recommendations include: 

• Use of real-time CGM and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes.
• Use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.
• Use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Noting that there is “moderate-certainty” evidence for severe hypoglycemia reduction as an outcome in those using long-acting analog insulins versus human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the panel cautions that “most studies of long-acting analog insulins do not assess for significant adverse effects, including cardiovascular outcomes, and that many studies were designed to demonstrate noninferiority of analog insulin, compared with human NPH insulin.”

• Initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia: One of top three preventable adverse drug reactions

The updated guidelines are especially important considering the common incidence of hypoglycemia, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined to be one of the top 3 preventable adverse drug reactions, the panel says.

They note that between January 2007 and December 2011, emergency department visits for therapy-associated hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries resulted in more than $600 million in spending.

Meanwhile, many people with type 1 or 2 diabetes may not experience or recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia, which, in severe cases, can lead to unconsciousness or seizures, in addition to affecting quality of life, social life, work productivity, and ability to drive safely.

The key to accurate diagnosis of those patients is assessment of the three levels of hypoglycemia, described in a 2018 consensus statement:

• Level 1: Glucose less than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and greater than or equal to 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia should alert patients that they may need to ingest carbohydrate to prevent progressive hypoglycemia.
• Level 2: Glucose less than 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk for cognitive dysfunction and mortality.
• Level 3: A severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. This level of hypoglycemia is life-threatening and requires emergent treatment, typically with glucagon.

Ultimately, “new technology and medications will help reduce hypoglycemia, and [clinicians] can better treat patients now with new, easier glucagons,” Dr. McCall told this news organization.

“People with diabetes, their caregivers, and diabetes specialists will all benefit from our guideline with a better understanding of best practices and interventions,” the panel notes.
 

Disparities still exist in access to insulin pumps

Separately, new research shows that while use of insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes has grown over 20 years, there has been no improvement in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in their use in the United States. The findings are reported in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

Using data from the SEARCH for Diabetes Youth Study across four time periods between 2001 and 2019, the researchers show that by the end of the period studied, insulin pump use was 67% among non-Hispanic White people, 41% among Hispanic people, 29% among Black people, and 46% among other racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 70% of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher used the pumps, compared with 56% among those with some college, 40% among holders of high school degrees, and 18% among those with no high school education. By income level, 74% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 66% with $50,000-$74,999, 51% with $25,000-$49,999, and 41% with less than $25,000 used the pumps.

“Diabetes technology has numerous benefits for patients with type 1 diabetes, but the problem is that there is a huge divide in who actually has access to these technologies,” said study lead Estelle Everett, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the University of California, Los Angeles.

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

The Endocrine Society has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes who are at high risk, addressing the wide variety of treatment advances, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that have appeared since the publication of the society’s last guideline on hypoglycemia, in 2009.

“CGM and insulin pumps have been much more commonly used in the last decade among people with diabetes, including children, and there are new forms of glucagon available,” said Anthony L. McCall, MD, PhD, chair of the panel that wrote the guideline.

“We had to update our guideline to match these developments in the diabetes field,” noted Dr. McCall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in a press statement.

The new guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, addresses 10 key clinical questions regarding current issues relevant to hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in adult or pediatric patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the outpatient or inpatient setting.
 

Key guideline recommendations

The recommendations are based on factors including critical outcomes, implementation feasibility, and patient preferences.

Key guideline recommendations that are considered “strong,” based on evidence, include:

• The use of CGM rather than self-monitoring of blood glucose by fingerstick for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections. The panel underscored that “comprehensive patient education on how to use and troubleshoot CGM devices and interpret these data is critically important for maximum benefit and successful outcomes.”

The use of a structured program for patient education versus unstructured advice for adult and pediatric outpatients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy.

• Structured education on how to avoid repeated hypoglycemia is critical, and this education should be performed by experienced diabetes clinicians,” the panel asserts. “Moreover, insurance coverage for education should be available for all insulin-using patients.”
• The use of glucagon preparations that do not have to be reconstituted, as opposed to those that do (that is, available as a powder and diluent) in the treatment of outpatients with severe hypoglycemia.

Guideline recommendations that received conditional recommendations include: 

• Use of real-time CGM and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes.
• Use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.
• Use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Noting that there is “moderate-certainty” evidence for severe hypoglycemia reduction as an outcome in those using long-acting analog insulins versus human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the panel cautions that “most studies of long-acting analog insulins do not assess for significant adverse effects, including cardiovascular outcomes, and that many studies were designed to demonstrate noninferiority of analog insulin, compared with human NPH insulin.”

• Initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia: One of top three preventable adverse drug reactions

The updated guidelines are especially important considering the common incidence of hypoglycemia, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined to be one of the top 3 preventable adverse drug reactions, the panel says.

They note that between January 2007 and December 2011, emergency department visits for therapy-associated hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries resulted in more than $600 million in spending.

Meanwhile, many people with type 1 or 2 diabetes may not experience or recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia, which, in severe cases, can lead to unconsciousness or seizures, in addition to affecting quality of life, social life, work productivity, and ability to drive safely.

The key to accurate diagnosis of those patients is assessment of the three levels of hypoglycemia, described in a 2018 consensus statement:

• Level 1: Glucose less than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and greater than or equal to 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia should alert patients that they may need to ingest carbohydrate to prevent progressive hypoglycemia.
• Level 2: Glucose less than 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk for cognitive dysfunction and mortality.
• Level 3: A severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. This level of hypoglycemia is life-threatening and requires emergent treatment, typically with glucagon.

Ultimately, “new technology and medications will help reduce hypoglycemia, and [clinicians] can better treat patients now with new, easier glucagons,” Dr. McCall told this news organization.

“People with diabetes, their caregivers, and diabetes specialists will all benefit from our guideline with a better understanding of best practices and interventions,” the panel notes.
 

Disparities still exist in access to insulin pumps

Separately, new research shows that while use of insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes has grown over 20 years, there has been no improvement in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in their use in the United States. The findings are reported in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

Using data from the SEARCH for Diabetes Youth Study across four time periods between 2001 and 2019, the researchers show that by the end of the period studied, insulin pump use was 67% among non-Hispanic White people, 41% among Hispanic people, 29% among Black people, and 46% among other racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 70% of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher used the pumps, compared with 56% among those with some college, 40% among holders of high school degrees, and 18% among those with no high school education. By income level, 74% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 66% with $50,000-$74,999, 51% with $25,000-$49,999, and 41% with less than $25,000 used the pumps.

“Diabetes technology has numerous benefits for patients with type 1 diabetes, but the problem is that there is a huge divide in who actually has access to these technologies,” said study lead Estelle Everett, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the University of California, Los Angeles.

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

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

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

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

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

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

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

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022