Commentary

A recent review by Hadanny and colleagues recommends hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for acute moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and selected patients with prolonged postconcussive syndrome.

This article piqued my curiosity because I trained in HBOT more than 20 years ago. As a passionate scuba diver, my motivation was to master treatment for air embolism and decompression illness. Thankfully, these diving accidents are rare. However, I used HBOT for nonhealing wounds, and its efficacy was sometimes remarkable.
 

Paradoxical results with oxygen therapy

Although it may seem self-evident that “more oxygen is better” for medical illness, this is not necessarily true. I recently interviewed Ola Didrik Saugstad, MD, who demonstrated that the traditional practice of resuscitating newborns with 100% oxygen was more toxic than resuscitation with air (which contains 21% oxygen). His counterintuitive discovery led to a lifesaving change in the international newborn resuscitation guidelines.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved HBOT for a wide variety of conditions, but some practitioners enthusiastically promote it for off-label indications. These include antiaging, autism, multiple sclerosis, and the aforementioned TBI.

More than 50 years ago, HBOT was proposed for stroke, another disorder where the brain has been deprived of oxygen. Despite obvious logic, clinical trials have been unconvincing. The FDA has not approved HBOT for stroke.
 

HBOT in practice

During HBOT, the patient breathes 100% oxygen while the whole body is pressurized within a hyperbaric chamber. The chamber’s construction allows pressures above normal sea level of 1.0 atmosphere absolute (ATA). For example, The U.S. Navy Treatment Table for decompression sickness recommends 100% oxygen at 2.8 ATA. Chambers may hold one or more patients at a time.

The frequency of therapy varies but often consists of 20-60 sessions lasting 90-120 minutes. For off-label use like TBI, patients usually pay out of pocket. Given the multiple treatments, costs can add up.
 

Inconsistent evidence and sham controls

The unwieldy 33-page evidence review by Hadanny and colleagues cites multiple studies supporting HBOT for TBI. However, many, if not all, suffer from methodological flaws. These include vague inclusion criteria, lack of a control group, small patient numbers, treatment at different times since injury, poorly defined or varying HBOT protocols, varying outcome measures, and superficial results analysis.

A sham or control arm is essential for HBOT research trials, given the potential placebo effect of placing a human being inside a large, high-tech, sealed tube for an hour or more. In some sham-controlled studies, which consisted of low-pressure oxygen (that is, 1.3 ATA as sham vs. 2.4 ATA as treatment), all groups experienced symptom improvement. The review authors argue that the low-dose HBOT sham arms were biologically active and that the improvements seen mean that both high- and low-dose HBOT is therapeutic. The alternative explanation is that the placebo effect accounted for improvement in both groups.

The late Michael Bennett, a world authority on hyperbaric and underwater medicine, doubted that conventional HBOT sham controls could genuinely have a therapeutic effect, and I agree. The upcoming HOT-POCS trial (discussed below) should answer the question more definitively.
 

Mechanisms of action and safety

Mechanisms of benefit for HBOT include increased oxygen availability and angiogenesis. Animal research suggests that it may reduce secondary cell death from TBI, through stabilization of the blood-brain barrier and inflammation reduction.

HBOT is generally safe and well tolerated. A retrospective analysis of 1.5 million outpatient hyperbaric treatments revealed that less than 1% were associated with adverse events. The most common were ear and sinus barotrauma. Because HBOT uses increased air pressure, patients must equalize their ears and sinuses. Those who cannot because of altered consciousness, anatomical defects, or congestion must undergo myringotomy or terminate therapy. Claustrophobia was the second most common adverse effect. Convulsions and tension pneumocephalus were rare.

Perhaps the most concerning risk of HBOT for patients with TBI is the potential waste of human and financial resources.
 

Desperate physicians and patients

As a neurologist who regularly treats patients with TBI, I share the review authors’ frustration regarding the limited efficacy of available treatments. However, the suboptimal efficacy of currently available therapy is insufficient justification to recommend HBOT.

With respect to chronic TBI, it is difficult to imagine how HBOT could reverse brain injury that has been present for months or years. No other therapy exists that reliably encourages neuronal regeneration or prevents the development of posttraumatic epilepsy.

Frank Conidi, MD, a board-certified sports neurologist and headache specialist, shared his thoughts via email. He agrees that HBOT may have a role in TBI, but after reviewing Hadanny and colleagues’ paper, he concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the use of HBOT in all forms of TBI. He would like to see large multicenter, well-designed studies with standardized pressures and duration and a standard definition of the various types of head injury.
 

Ongoing research

There are at least five ongoing trials on HBOT for TBI or postconcussive syndrome, including the well-designed placebo-controlled HOT-POCS study. The latter has a novel placebo gas system that addresses Hadanny and colleagues’ contention that even low-dose HBOT might be effective.

The placebo arm in HOT-POCS mimics the HBO environment but provides only 0.21 ATA of oxygen, the same as room air. The active arm provides 100% oxygen at 2.0 ATA. If patients in both arms improve, the benefit will be caused by a placebo response, not HBOT.
 

Conflict of interest

Another concern with the review is that all three authors are affiliated with Aviv Scientific. This company has an exclusive partnership with the world’s largest hyperbaric medicine and research facility, the Sagol Center at Shamir Medical Center in Be’er Ya’akov, Israel.

This conflict of interest does not a priori invalidate their conclusions. However, official HBOT guidelines from a leading organization like the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine Society or the American Academy of Neurology would be preferable.
 

Conclusion

There is an urgent unmet need for more effective treatments for postconcussive syndrome and chronic TBI. Despite tantalizing theoretical mechanisms as to why HBOT might promote brain healing after trauma, its efficacy remains unproven.

The review authors’ recommendations for HBOT seem premature. They are arguably a disservice to the many desperate patients and their families who will be tempted to expend valuable resources of time and money for an appealing but unproven therapy. Appropriately designed placebo-controlled studies such as HOT-POCS will help separate fact from wishful thinking.

Dr. Wilner is associate professor of neurology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported a conflict of interest with Accordant Health Services.

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

A recent review by Hadanny and colleagues recommends hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for acute moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and selected patients with prolonged postconcussive syndrome.

This article piqued my curiosity because I trained in HBOT more than 20 years ago. As a passionate scuba diver, my motivation was to master treatment for air embolism and decompression illness. Thankfully, these diving accidents are rare. However, I used HBOT for nonhealing wounds, and its efficacy was sometimes remarkable.
 

Paradoxical results with oxygen therapy

Although it may seem self-evident that “more oxygen is better” for medical illness, this is not necessarily true. I recently interviewed Ola Didrik Saugstad, MD, who demonstrated that the traditional practice of resuscitating newborns with 100% oxygen was more toxic than resuscitation with air (which contains 21% oxygen). His counterintuitive discovery led to a lifesaving change in the international newborn resuscitation guidelines.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved HBOT for a wide variety of conditions, but some practitioners enthusiastically promote it for off-label indications. These include antiaging, autism, multiple sclerosis, and the aforementioned TBI.

More than 50 years ago, HBOT was proposed for stroke, another disorder where the brain has been deprived of oxygen. Despite obvious logic, clinical trials have been unconvincing. The FDA has not approved HBOT for stroke.
 

HBOT in practice

During HBOT, the patient breathes 100% oxygen while the whole body is pressurized within a hyperbaric chamber. The chamber’s construction allows pressures above normal sea level of 1.0 atmosphere absolute (ATA). For example, The U.S. Navy Treatment Table for decompression sickness recommends 100% oxygen at 2.8 ATA. Chambers may hold one or more patients at a time.

The frequency of therapy varies but often consists of 20-60 sessions lasting 90-120 minutes. For off-label use like TBI, patients usually pay out of pocket. Given the multiple treatments, costs can add up.
 

Inconsistent evidence and sham controls

The unwieldy 33-page evidence review by Hadanny and colleagues cites multiple studies supporting HBOT for TBI. However, many, if not all, suffer from methodological flaws. These include vague inclusion criteria, lack of a control group, small patient numbers, treatment at different times since injury, poorly defined or varying HBOT protocols, varying outcome measures, and superficial results analysis.

A sham or control arm is essential for HBOT research trials, given the potential placebo effect of placing a human being inside a large, high-tech, sealed tube for an hour or more. In some sham-controlled studies, which consisted of low-pressure oxygen (that is, 1.3 ATA as sham vs. 2.4 ATA as treatment), all groups experienced symptom improvement. The review authors argue that the low-dose HBOT sham arms were biologically active and that the improvements seen mean that both high- and low-dose HBOT is therapeutic. The alternative explanation is that the placebo effect accounted for improvement in both groups.

The late Michael Bennett, a world authority on hyperbaric and underwater medicine, doubted that conventional HBOT sham controls could genuinely have a therapeutic effect, and I agree. The upcoming HOT-POCS trial (discussed below) should answer the question more definitively.
 

Mechanisms of action and safety

Mechanisms of benefit for HBOT include increased oxygen availability and angiogenesis. Animal research suggests that it may reduce secondary cell death from TBI, through stabilization of the blood-brain barrier and inflammation reduction.

HBOT is generally safe and well tolerated. A retrospective analysis of 1.5 million outpatient hyperbaric treatments revealed that less than 1% were associated with adverse events. The most common were ear and sinus barotrauma. Because HBOT uses increased air pressure, patients must equalize their ears and sinuses. Those who cannot because of altered consciousness, anatomical defects, or congestion must undergo myringotomy or terminate therapy. Claustrophobia was the second most common adverse effect. Convulsions and tension pneumocephalus were rare.

Perhaps the most concerning risk of HBOT for patients with TBI is the potential waste of human and financial resources.
 

Desperate physicians and patients

As a neurologist who regularly treats patients with TBI, I share the review authors’ frustration regarding the limited efficacy of available treatments. However, the suboptimal efficacy of currently available therapy is insufficient justification to recommend HBOT.

With respect to chronic TBI, it is difficult to imagine how HBOT could reverse brain injury that has been present for months or years. No other therapy exists that reliably encourages neuronal regeneration or prevents the development of posttraumatic epilepsy.

Frank Conidi, MD, a board-certified sports neurologist and headache specialist, shared his thoughts via email. He agrees that HBOT may have a role in TBI, but after reviewing Hadanny and colleagues’ paper, he concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the use of HBOT in all forms of TBI. He would like to see large multicenter, well-designed studies with standardized pressures and duration and a standard definition of the various types of head injury.
 

Ongoing research

There are at least five ongoing trials on HBOT for TBI or postconcussive syndrome, including the well-designed placebo-controlled HOT-POCS study. The latter has a novel placebo gas system that addresses Hadanny and colleagues’ contention that even low-dose HBOT might be effective.

The placebo arm in HOT-POCS mimics the HBO environment but provides only 0.21 ATA of oxygen, the same as room air. The active arm provides 100% oxygen at 2.0 ATA. If patients in both arms improve, the benefit will be caused by a placebo response, not HBOT.
 

Conflict of interest

Another concern with the review is that all three authors are affiliated with Aviv Scientific. This company has an exclusive partnership with the world’s largest hyperbaric medicine and research facility, the Sagol Center at Shamir Medical Center in Be’er Ya’akov, Israel.

This conflict of interest does not a priori invalidate their conclusions. However, official HBOT guidelines from a leading organization like the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine Society or the American Academy of Neurology would be preferable.
 

Conclusion

There is an urgent unmet need for more effective treatments for postconcussive syndrome and chronic TBI. Despite tantalizing theoretical mechanisms as to why HBOT might promote brain healing after trauma, its efficacy remains unproven.

The review authors’ recommendations for HBOT seem premature. They are arguably a disservice to the many desperate patients and their families who will be tempted to expend valuable resources of time and money for an appealing but unproven therapy. Appropriately designed placebo-controlled studies such as HOT-POCS will help separate fact from wishful thinking.

Dr. Wilner is associate professor of neurology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported a conflict of interest with Accordant Health Services.

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

A recent review by Hadanny and colleagues recommends hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for acute moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and selected patients with prolonged postconcussive syndrome.

This article piqued my curiosity because I trained in HBOT more than 20 years ago. As a passionate scuba diver, my motivation was to master treatment for air embolism and decompression illness. Thankfully, these diving accidents are rare. However, I used HBOT for nonhealing wounds, and its efficacy was sometimes remarkable.
 

Paradoxical results with oxygen therapy

Although it may seem self-evident that “more oxygen is better” for medical illness, this is not necessarily true. I recently interviewed Ola Didrik Saugstad, MD, who demonstrated that the traditional practice of resuscitating newborns with 100% oxygen was more toxic than resuscitation with air (which contains 21% oxygen). His counterintuitive discovery led to a lifesaving change in the international newborn resuscitation guidelines.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved HBOT for a wide variety of conditions, but some practitioners enthusiastically promote it for off-label indications. These include antiaging, autism, multiple sclerosis, and the aforementioned TBI.

More than 50 years ago, HBOT was proposed for stroke, another disorder where the brain has been deprived of oxygen. Despite obvious logic, clinical trials have been unconvincing. The FDA has not approved HBOT for stroke.
 

HBOT in practice

During HBOT, the patient breathes 100% oxygen while the whole body is pressurized within a hyperbaric chamber. The chamber’s construction allows pressures above normal sea level of 1.0 atmosphere absolute (ATA). For example, The U.S. Navy Treatment Table for decompression sickness recommends 100% oxygen at 2.8 ATA. Chambers may hold one or more patients at a time.

The frequency of therapy varies but often consists of 20-60 sessions lasting 90-120 minutes. For off-label use like TBI, patients usually pay out of pocket. Given the multiple treatments, costs can add up.
 

Inconsistent evidence and sham controls

The unwieldy 33-page evidence review by Hadanny and colleagues cites multiple studies supporting HBOT for TBI. However, many, if not all, suffer from methodological flaws. These include vague inclusion criteria, lack of a control group, small patient numbers, treatment at different times since injury, poorly defined or varying HBOT protocols, varying outcome measures, and superficial results analysis.

A sham or control arm is essential for HBOT research trials, given the potential placebo effect of placing a human being inside a large, high-tech, sealed tube for an hour or more. In some sham-controlled studies, which consisted of low-pressure oxygen (that is, 1.3 ATA as sham vs. 2.4 ATA as treatment), all groups experienced symptom improvement. The review authors argue that the low-dose HBOT sham arms were biologically active and that the improvements seen mean that both high- and low-dose HBOT is therapeutic. The alternative explanation is that the placebo effect accounted for improvement in both groups.

The late Michael Bennett, a world authority on hyperbaric and underwater medicine, doubted that conventional HBOT sham controls could genuinely have a therapeutic effect, and I agree. The upcoming HOT-POCS trial (discussed below) should answer the question more definitively.
 

Mechanisms of action and safety

Mechanisms of benefit for HBOT include increased oxygen availability and angiogenesis. Animal research suggests that it may reduce secondary cell death from TBI, through stabilization of the blood-brain barrier and inflammation reduction.

HBOT is generally safe and well tolerated. A retrospective analysis of 1.5 million outpatient hyperbaric treatments revealed that less than 1% were associated with adverse events. The most common were ear and sinus barotrauma. Because HBOT uses increased air pressure, patients must equalize their ears and sinuses. Those who cannot because of altered consciousness, anatomical defects, or congestion must undergo myringotomy or terminate therapy. Claustrophobia was the second most common adverse effect. Convulsions and tension pneumocephalus were rare.

Perhaps the most concerning risk of HBOT for patients with TBI is the potential waste of human and financial resources.
 

Desperate physicians and patients

As a neurologist who regularly treats patients with TBI, I share the review authors’ frustration regarding the limited efficacy of available treatments. However, the suboptimal efficacy of currently available therapy is insufficient justification to recommend HBOT.

With respect to chronic TBI, it is difficult to imagine how HBOT could reverse brain injury that has been present for months or years. No other therapy exists that reliably encourages neuronal regeneration or prevents the development of posttraumatic epilepsy.

Frank Conidi, MD, a board-certified sports neurologist and headache specialist, shared his thoughts via email. He agrees that HBOT may have a role in TBI, but after reviewing Hadanny and colleagues’ paper, he concluded that there is insufficient evidence for the use of HBOT in all forms of TBI. He would like to see large multicenter, well-designed studies with standardized pressures and duration and a standard definition of the various types of head injury.
 

Ongoing research

There are at least five ongoing trials on HBOT for TBI or postconcussive syndrome, including the well-designed placebo-controlled HOT-POCS study. The latter has a novel placebo gas system that addresses Hadanny and colleagues’ contention that even low-dose HBOT might be effective.

The placebo arm in HOT-POCS mimics the HBO environment but provides only 0.21 ATA of oxygen, the same as room air. The active arm provides 100% oxygen at 2.0 ATA. If patients in both arms improve, the benefit will be caused by a placebo response, not HBOT.
 

Conflict of interest

Another concern with the review is that all three authors are affiliated with Aviv Scientific. This company has an exclusive partnership with the world’s largest hyperbaric medicine and research facility, the Sagol Center at Shamir Medical Center in Be’er Ya’akov, Israel.

This conflict of interest does not a priori invalidate their conclusions. However, official HBOT guidelines from a leading organization like the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine Society or the American Academy of Neurology would be preferable.
 

Conclusion

There is an urgent unmet need for more effective treatments for postconcussive syndrome and chronic TBI. Despite tantalizing theoretical mechanisms as to why HBOT might promote brain healing after trauma, its efficacy remains unproven.

The review authors’ recommendations for HBOT seem premature. They are arguably a disservice to the many desperate patients and their families who will be tempted to expend valuable resources of time and money for an appealing but unproven therapy. Appropriately designed placebo-controlled studies such as HOT-POCS will help separate fact from wishful thinking.

Dr. Wilner is associate professor of neurology at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported a conflict of interest with Accordant Health Services.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that typically presents as a symmetric inflammatory polyarthritis (synovitis) primarily affecting the hands and feet. Any joint lined by a synovial membrane may be involved; however, extraarticular involvement of various organs can be significant. RA is theorized to develop when a genetically susceptible individual experiences an external trigger (e.g., cigarette smoking, infection, trauma) that precipitates an autoimmune reaction.

Rheumatology is a rapidly advancing, but relatively young, subspecialty. An understanding of the pathophysiology, treatment, and classification of RA is still emerging. Here are five things to know about RA.
 

1. A healthier lifestyle is associated with a reduced risk of developing RA. 

Large epidemiologic studies have identified several factors that increase the incidence of RA; these include an unhealthy diet, smoking, adiposity, low educational level, and low socioeconomic status. A patient’s response to antirheumatic medications can be affected by certain lifestyle habits, which can be associated with worse treatment outcomes; such habits include smoking, insufficient physical activity, and obesity, among others. Although methodologic problems may impede making firm conclusions regarding a causal role for these factors in the disease course and risk of developing RA, current evidence is sufficient to recommend quitting smoking, adopting a healthy diet, preventing obesity, and maintaining a high level of physical activity to support the effectiveness of current antirheumatic drugs.

In the Nurses’ Health Study, biennial questionnaires were used to collect lifestyle and medical information to determine which modifiable risk factors are associated with the risk for RA in women. Patient medical records were used to confirm incident RA and serostatus. The healthy lifestyle index score (HLIS), which includes five modifiable risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, physical activity, and diet), was used to assess risk. Cox regression, which was adjusted for confounders, was used to model associations between HLIS and the incidence of RA. The study concluded that a healthier lifestyle was associated with a lower risk of developing RA, and a significant number of RA cases may be preventable if patients adopted four or more healthy lifestyle factors.

The Mediterranean diet is one current popular dietary option that appears to have promising evidence in many disease processes, including RA.

2. In pregnant women with RA, the course of the disease can change throughout pregnancy. 

The course of RA often changes during pregnancy. About half of pregnant women with RA have low disease activity, and 20%-40% achieve remission by the third trimester; however, nearly 20% have worse or moderate to high disease activity during pregnancy that may require further therapeutic intervention. Postpartum flares of RA also may occur, with studies reporting rates of 39%-90%.

No specific guidelines address obstetric monitoring in patients with RA. Because few data suggest a significantly increased risk for preterm birth, preeclampsia, or fetal growth restriction, no special obstetric monitoring is indicated beyond what is performed for usual obstetric care.

Medications considered to be low risk in pregnancy include low-dose corticosteroids, antimalarial agents, sulfasalazine, and azathioprine. Certain tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are also thought to be relatively safe.

3. A well-designed exercise program can be beneficial in RA.

Regular physical activity has replaced bed rest as the recommended response to the stiffness and pain associated with RA. However, many patients who have RA do not really believe this. Lack of conviction and motivation appear to be the major factors that deter nearly half of patients with RA from moving about enough to help their situation. There is ample evidence about the benefits of physical activity in RA, but little research into why few patients with RA take advantage of it. The extreme physical inactivity of patients with RA becomes a vicious cycle in terms of health and disease progression. Thus, encouraging physical activity is an essential part of the overall treatment of RA.

Findings from randomized controlled trials show that exercise is fundamentally beneficial for patients with RA. The benefits of properly designed physical exercise programs include improved cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular health, increased muscle mass, reduced adiposity, increased strength, and improved physical functioning, all achieved without exacerbation of disease activity or joint damage.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released recommendations for exercise interventions for RA. The ACR strongly recommends consistent engagement in an exercise program over no exercise. The type of exercise is open to interpretation. An exercise program for patients with rheumatic diseases aims to preserve or restore the range of motion of affected joints, increase muscle strength and endurance, and improve mood and decrease health risks associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

4. RA is a systemic disease that affects multiple organ systems.

Although synovitis is the pathologic hallmark of RA, extraarticular manifestations and comorbidities occur presumably owing to the complex, chronic, inflammatory, and autoimmune features of RA.

The most common cause of death in patients with RA is cardiovascular disease. Compared with the general population, patients with RA have two times the risk of having a myocardial infarction, and they have up to 50% greater cardiovascular mortality risk. Factors identified to play important roles in atherosclerotic damage and incident cardiovascular disease include severe and prolonged disease activity, inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), cytokines, matrix-degrading enzymes), and genetics.

Respiratory disease is the second major cause of death in patients with RA; this occurs in 30%-40% of patients with RA. The lung interstitium, airways, and pleurae can all be affected by RA, but pulmonary vascular involvement is less common.

Central and peripheral nervous system involvement is typically attributed to RA-associated small-vessel vasculitis, joint damage, and/or drug toxicity. Evidence also suggests that systemic inflammation causes microvascular cerebral damage that is associated with the development of vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Finally, some observational studies have suggested that drugs commonly used to treat RA – disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics – may reduce the incidence of dementia.

5. As treatment options for RA improve, many controversies have arisen.

In patients without RA symptoms but with biomarkers, experts debate whether early treatment with DMARDs could prevent irreversible joint damage.

There is no clear definition of pre-RA, but it could be defined as having positive markers for RA (e.g., positive rheumatoid factor and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptides) or having joint pain with abnormal ultrasonography findings but not having positive biomarkers. However, not all patients who have positive biomarkers progress to clinical RA, so what exactly determines this progression is unclear. Nevertheless, some clinicians do treat pre-RA. This was a major debate at the ACR’s 2022 meeting.

Studies have shown that early treatment of RA, including during the preclinical phase, can lead to better long-term outcomes. It can help reduce joint inflammation, control disease activity, and prevent or minimize irreversible joint damage. Early treatment also increases the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity, which improves quality of life for patients. Lifestyle interventions in these patients, including exercise, weight control, and cardiovascular health, may not prevent disease but may delay the onset of full-blown clinical RA.

The discovery of pre-RA has also underpinned the development of several clinical prevention trials in RA; specifically, the PRAIRI study demonstrated that a single dose of rituximab can delay the onset of clinically apparent RA in at-risk individuals. Additional studies are evaluating the ability of drugs, including abatacept, hydroxychloroquine, and methotrexate, to prevent or delay future RA.

Dual biologics target different pathways – ostensibly boosting efficacy – but unknowns, concerns over safety, and lack of evidence make the practice controversial.

Several randomized controlled trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of dual-biologic treatment of RA, but the results have been mixed, which has raised safety concerns. Overall, there is a paucity of data concerning the safety of the simultaneous use of more than one biologic. Dual therapy may constitute an efficacious and safe add-on treatment to biologic therapy, but properly conducted clinical investigations are needed. In the meantime, dual biologic therapy used at physicians’ discretion requires close monitoring of patients, with an emphasis on the safety profile.

Large language models (artificial intelligence [AI]) are rapidly taking hold in medicine. Many argue that they can enrich patient care, but they come with liability risks.

Large language models, such as AI chatbots or ChatGPT, can increase access to information, help with patient education, and support decision-making. Limitations include lack of personalization, clinical experience, and emotional connection. The use of large language models in health care is fraught with ethical and legal concerns.

Liability issues can arise if errors, inaccuracies, or adverse outcomes result from the use of AI chatbots. Determining liability may involve assessing factors such as the design and development of the AI system, training and deployment of the model, the communication of limitations and disclaimers to users, and the involvement of human healthcare professionals in the decision-making process.

To mitigate liability risks, AI chatbots in rheumatology must comply with applicable regulations and guidelines. Transparency in the capabilities and limitations of the system, clear communication of the boundaries of its advice, and the presence of human oversight are essential. Collaborating with legal experts and following best practices in the development and deployment of AI technologies can help to minimize liability concerns.

The benefits and risks associated with tapering DMARD therapy in patients with RA who have sustained remission of disease should be considered.

Although some patients with well-controlled RA have relapse after tapering or discontinuing DMARDs, some do not, making this treatment strategy a personal decision undertaken with a rheumatologist.

In the RETRO study, German researchers examined the effects of tapering or stopping DMARDs in patients whose RA was in sustained remission. In the phase 3 trial (n = 316), investigators randomized 303 patients with remission for ≥ 6 months who were on stable conventional synthetic or biologic DMARD treatment into three groups: (1) continuation on 100% DMARD dose, (2) tapering to 50% of the DMARD dose, and (3) 50% tapering followed by DMARD withdrawal. The proportion of patients who continued in remission at 1 year was 81.2% in group 1, 58.6% in group 2, and 43.3% in group 3. Predictors for flare-ups were female sex, longer disease duration, rheumatoid factor or ACPA positivity, and higher disease activity scores at baseline.

The abrupt cessation or reduction of DMARDs without medical supervision and guidance can exacerbate symptoms and result in disease flares.

The interplay between long COVID and RA is a recent phenomenon that needs to be considered.

RA shares similar symptoms with long COVID. Patients with a history of RA and a previous diagnosis of COVID-19 who have developed persistent joint or muscle symptoms pose a significant challenge to clinicians. Such patients may be experiencing long COVID or a flare-up of their preexisting rheumatic disease.

Immunosuppressive medications can potentially increase the risk for COVID-19, but it is not clear how they affect disease severity risk. Individuals with RA and long COVID need careful evaluation to balance the management of disease activity while considering the risks associated with immunosuppression and potential susceptibility to viral infections.

Dr. Dombrosky is a staff physician in rheumatology at Central Virginia VA Health Care System in Richmond. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that typically presents as a symmetric inflammatory polyarthritis (synovitis) primarily affecting the hands and feet. Any joint lined by a synovial membrane may be involved; however, extraarticular involvement of various organs can be significant. RA is theorized to develop when a genetically susceptible individual experiences an external trigger (e.g., cigarette smoking, infection, trauma) that precipitates an autoimmune reaction.

Rheumatology is a rapidly advancing, but relatively young, subspecialty. An understanding of the pathophysiology, treatment, and classification of RA is still emerging. Here are five things to know about RA.
 

1. A healthier lifestyle is associated with a reduced risk of developing RA. 

Large epidemiologic studies have identified several factors that increase the incidence of RA; these include an unhealthy diet, smoking, adiposity, low educational level, and low socioeconomic status. A patient’s response to antirheumatic medications can be affected by certain lifestyle habits, which can be associated with worse treatment outcomes; such habits include smoking, insufficient physical activity, and obesity, among others. Although methodologic problems may impede making firm conclusions regarding a causal role for these factors in the disease course and risk of developing RA, current evidence is sufficient to recommend quitting smoking, adopting a healthy diet, preventing obesity, and maintaining a high level of physical activity to support the effectiveness of current antirheumatic drugs.

In the Nurses’ Health Study, biennial questionnaires were used to collect lifestyle and medical information to determine which modifiable risk factors are associated with the risk for RA in women. Patient medical records were used to confirm incident RA and serostatus. The healthy lifestyle index score (HLIS), which includes five modifiable risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, physical activity, and diet), was used to assess risk. Cox regression, which was adjusted for confounders, was used to model associations between HLIS and the incidence of RA. The study concluded that a healthier lifestyle was associated with a lower risk of developing RA, and a significant number of RA cases may be preventable if patients adopted four or more healthy lifestyle factors.

The Mediterranean diet is one current popular dietary option that appears to have promising evidence in many disease processes, including RA.

2. In pregnant women with RA, the course of the disease can change throughout pregnancy. 

The course of RA often changes during pregnancy. About half of pregnant women with RA have low disease activity, and 20%-40% achieve remission by the third trimester; however, nearly 20% have worse or moderate to high disease activity during pregnancy that may require further therapeutic intervention. Postpartum flares of RA also may occur, with studies reporting rates of 39%-90%.

No specific guidelines address obstetric monitoring in patients with RA. Because few data suggest a significantly increased risk for preterm birth, preeclampsia, or fetal growth restriction, no special obstetric monitoring is indicated beyond what is performed for usual obstetric care.

Medications considered to be low risk in pregnancy include low-dose corticosteroids, antimalarial agents, sulfasalazine, and azathioprine. Certain tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are also thought to be relatively safe.

3. A well-designed exercise program can be beneficial in RA.

Regular physical activity has replaced bed rest as the recommended response to the stiffness and pain associated with RA. However, many patients who have RA do not really believe this. Lack of conviction and motivation appear to be the major factors that deter nearly half of patients with RA from moving about enough to help their situation. There is ample evidence about the benefits of physical activity in RA, but little research into why few patients with RA take advantage of it. The extreme physical inactivity of patients with RA becomes a vicious cycle in terms of health and disease progression. Thus, encouraging physical activity is an essential part of the overall treatment of RA.

Findings from randomized controlled trials show that exercise is fundamentally beneficial for patients with RA. The benefits of properly designed physical exercise programs include improved cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular health, increased muscle mass, reduced adiposity, increased strength, and improved physical functioning, all achieved without exacerbation of disease activity or joint damage.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released recommendations for exercise interventions for RA. The ACR strongly recommends consistent engagement in an exercise program over no exercise. The type of exercise is open to interpretation. An exercise program for patients with rheumatic diseases aims to preserve or restore the range of motion of affected joints, increase muscle strength and endurance, and improve mood and decrease health risks associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

4. RA is a systemic disease that affects multiple organ systems.

Although synovitis is the pathologic hallmark of RA, extraarticular manifestations and comorbidities occur presumably owing to the complex, chronic, inflammatory, and autoimmune features of RA.

The most common cause of death in patients with RA is cardiovascular disease. Compared with the general population, patients with RA have two times the risk of having a myocardial infarction, and they have up to 50% greater cardiovascular mortality risk. Factors identified to play important roles in atherosclerotic damage and incident cardiovascular disease include severe and prolonged disease activity, inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), cytokines, matrix-degrading enzymes), and genetics.

Respiratory disease is the second major cause of death in patients with RA; this occurs in 30%-40% of patients with RA. The lung interstitium, airways, and pleurae can all be affected by RA, but pulmonary vascular involvement is less common.

Central and peripheral nervous system involvement is typically attributed to RA-associated small-vessel vasculitis, joint damage, and/or drug toxicity. Evidence also suggests that systemic inflammation causes microvascular cerebral damage that is associated with the development of vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Finally, some observational studies have suggested that drugs commonly used to treat RA – disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics – may reduce the incidence of dementia.

5. As treatment options for RA improve, many controversies have arisen.

In patients without RA symptoms but with biomarkers, experts debate whether early treatment with DMARDs could prevent irreversible joint damage.

There is no clear definition of pre-RA, but it could be defined as having positive markers for RA (e.g., positive rheumatoid factor and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptides) or having joint pain with abnormal ultrasonography findings but not having positive biomarkers. However, not all patients who have positive biomarkers progress to clinical RA, so what exactly determines this progression is unclear. Nevertheless, some clinicians do treat pre-RA. This was a major debate at the ACR’s 2022 meeting.

Studies have shown that early treatment of RA, including during the preclinical phase, can lead to better long-term outcomes. It can help reduce joint inflammation, control disease activity, and prevent or minimize irreversible joint damage. Early treatment also increases the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity, which improves quality of life for patients. Lifestyle interventions in these patients, including exercise, weight control, and cardiovascular health, may not prevent disease but may delay the onset of full-blown clinical RA.

The discovery of pre-RA has also underpinned the development of several clinical prevention trials in RA; specifically, the PRAIRI study demonstrated that a single dose of rituximab can delay the onset of clinically apparent RA in at-risk individuals. Additional studies are evaluating the ability of drugs, including abatacept, hydroxychloroquine, and methotrexate, to prevent or delay future RA.

Dual biologics target different pathways – ostensibly boosting efficacy – but unknowns, concerns over safety, and lack of evidence make the practice controversial.

Several randomized controlled trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of dual-biologic treatment of RA, but the results have been mixed, which has raised safety concerns. Overall, there is a paucity of data concerning the safety of the simultaneous use of more than one biologic. Dual therapy may constitute an efficacious and safe add-on treatment to biologic therapy, but properly conducted clinical investigations are needed. In the meantime, dual biologic therapy used at physicians’ discretion requires close monitoring of patients, with an emphasis on the safety profile.

Large language models (artificial intelligence [AI]) are rapidly taking hold in medicine. Many argue that they can enrich patient care, but they come with liability risks.

Large language models, such as AI chatbots or ChatGPT, can increase access to information, help with patient education, and support decision-making. Limitations include lack of personalization, clinical experience, and emotional connection. The use of large language models in health care is fraught with ethical and legal concerns.

Liability issues can arise if errors, inaccuracies, or adverse outcomes result from the use of AI chatbots. Determining liability may involve assessing factors such as the design and development of the AI system, training and deployment of the model, the communication of limitations and disclaimers to users, and the involvement of human healthcare professionals in the decision-making process.

To mitigate liability risks, AI chatbots in rheumatology must comply with applicable regulations and guidelines. Transparency in the capabilities and limitations of the system, clear communication of the boundaries of its advice, and the presence of human oversight are essential. Collaborating with legal experts and following best practices in the development and deployment of AI technologies can help to minimize liability concerns.

The benefits and risks associated with tapering DMARD therapy in patients with RA who have sustained remission of disease should be considered.

Although some patients with well-controlled RA have relapse after tapering or discontinuing DMARDs, some do not, making this treatment strategy a personal decision undertaken with a rheumatologist.

In the RETRO study, German researchers examined the effects of tapering or stopping DMARDs in patients whose RA was in sustained remission. In the phase 3 trial (n = 316), investigators randomized 303 patients with remission for ≥ 6 months who were on stable conventional synthetic or biologic DMARD treatment into three groups: (1) continuation on 100% DMARD dose, (2) tapering to 50% of the DMARD dose, and (3) 50% tapering followed by DMARD withdrawal. The proportion of patients who continued in remission at 1 year was 81.2% in group 1, 58.6% in group 2, and 43.3% in group 3. Predictors for flare-ups were female sex, longer disease duration, rheumatoid factor or ACPA positivity, and higher disease activity scores at baseline.

The abrupt cessation or reduction of DMARDs without medical supervision and guidance can exacerbate symptoms and result in disease flares.

The interplay between long COVID and RA is a recent phenomenon that needs to be considered.

RA shares similar symptoms with long COVID. Patients with a history of RA and a previous diagnosis of COVID-19 who have developed persistent joint or muscle symptoms pose a significant challenge to clinicians. Such patients may be experiencing long COVID or a flare-up of their preexisting rheumatic disease.

Immunosuppressive medications can potentially increase the risk for COVID-19, but it is not clear how they affect disease severity risk. Individuals with RA and long COVID need careful evaluation to balance the management of disease activity while considering the risks associated with immunosuppression and potential susceptibility to viral infections.

Dr. Dombrosky is a staff physician in rheumatology at Central Virginia VA Health Care System in Richmond. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that typically presents as a symmetric inflammatory polyarthritis (synovitis) primarily affecting the hands and feet. Any joint lined by a synovial membrane may be involved; however, extraarticular involvement of various organs can be significant. RA is theorized to develop when a genetically susceptible individual experiences an external trigger (e.g., cigarette smoking, infection, trauma) that precipitates an autoimmune reaction.

Rheumatology is a rapidly advancing, but relatively young, subspecialty. An understanding of the pathophysiology, treatment, and classification of RA is still emerging. Here are five things to know about RA.
 

1. A healthier lifestyle is associated with a reduced risk of developing RA. 

Large epidemiologic studies have identified several factors that increase the incidence of RA; these include an unhealthy diet, smoking, adiposity, low educational level, and low socioeconomic status. A patient’s response to antirheumatic medications can be affected by certain lifestyle habits, which can be associated with worse treatment outcomes; such habits include smoking, insufficient physical activity, and obesity, among others. Although methodologic problems may impede making firm conclusions regarding a causal role for these factors in the disease course and risk of developing RA, current evidence is sufficient to recommend quitting smoking, adopting a healthy diet, preventing obesity, and maintaining a high level of physical activity to support the effectiveness of current antirheumatic drugs.

In the Nurses’ Health Study, biennial questionnaires were used to collect lifestyle and medical information to determine which modifiable risk factors are associated with the risk for RA in women. Patient medical records were used to confirm incident RA and serostatus. The healthy lifestyle index score (HLIS), which includes five modifiable risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, physical activity, and diet), was used to assess risk. Cox regression, which was adjusted for confounders, was used to model associations between HLIS and the incidence of RA. The study concluded that a healthier lifestyle was associated with a lower risk of developing RA, and a significant number of RA cases may be preventable if patients adopted four or more healthy lifestyle factors.

The Mediterranean diet is one current popular dietary option that appears to have promising evidence in many disease processes, including RA.

2. In pregnant women with RA, the course of the disease can change throughout pregnancy. 

The course of RA often changes during pregnancy. About half of pregnant women with RA have low disease activity, and 20%-40% achieve remission by the third trimester; however, nearly 20% have worse or moderate to high disease activity during pregnancy that may require further therapeutic intervention. Postpartum flares of RA also may occur, with studies reporting rates of 39%-90%.

No specific guidelines address obstetric monitoring in patients with RA. Because few data suggest a significantly increased risk for preterm birth, preeclampsia, or fetal growth restriction, no special obstetric monitoring is indicated beyond what is performed for usual obstetric care.

Medications considered to be low risk in pregnancy include low-dose corticosteroids, antimalarial agents, sulfasalazine, and azathioprine. Certain tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are also thought to be relatively safe.

3. A well-designed exercise program can be beneficial in RA.

Regular physical activity has replaced bed rest as the recommended response to the stiffness and pain associated with RA. However, many patients who have RA do not really believe this. Lack of conviction and motivation appear to be the major factors that deter nearly half of patients with RA from moving about enough to help their situation. There is ample evidence about the benefits of physical activity in RA, but little research into why few patients with RA take advantage of it. The extreme physical inactivity of patients with RA becomes a vicious cycle in terms of health and disease progression. Thus, encouraging physical activity is an essential part of the overall treatment of RA.

Findings from randomized controlled trials show that exercise is fundamentally beneficial for patients with RA. The benefits of properly designed physical exercise programs include improved cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular health, increased muscle mass, reduced adiposity, increased strength, and improved physical functioning, all achieved without exacerbation of disease activity or joint damage.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released recommendations for exercise interventions for RA. The ACR strongly recommends consistent engagement in an exercise program over no exercise. The type of exercise is open to interpretation. An exercise program for patients with rheumatic diseases aims to preserve or restore the range of motion of affected joints, increase muscle strength and endurance, and improve mood and decrease health risks associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

4. RA is a systemic disease that affects multiple organ systems.

Although synovitis is the pathologic hallmark of RA, extraarticular manifestations and comorbidities occur presumably owing to the complex, chronic, inflammatory, and autoimmune features of RA.

The most common cause of death in patients with RA is cardiovascular disease. Compared with the general population, patients with RA have two times the risk of having a myocardial infarction, and they have up to 50% greater cardiovascular mortality risk. Factors identified to play important roles in atherosclerotic damage and incident cardiovascular disease include severe and prolonged disease activity, inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), cytokines, matrix-degrading enzymes), and genetics.

Respiratory disease is the second major cause of death in patients with RA; this occurs in 30%-40% of patients with RA. The lung interstitium, airways, and pleurae can all be affected by RA, but pulmonary vascular involvement is less common.

Central and peripheral nervous system involvement is typically attributed to RA-associated small-vessel vasculitis, joint damage, and/or drug toxicity. Evidence also suggests that systemic inflammation causes microvascular cerebral damage that is associated with the development of vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Finally, some observational studies have suggested that drugs commonly used to treat RA – disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics – may reduce the incidence of dementia.

5. As treatment options for RA improve, many controversies have arisen.

In patients without RA symptoms but with biomarkers, experts debate whether early treatment with DMARDs could prevent irreversible joint damage.

There is no clear definition of pre-RA, but it could be defined as having positive markers for RA (e.g., positive rheumatoid factor and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptides) or having joint pain with abnormal ultrasonography findings but not having positive biomarkers. However, not all patients who have positive biomarkers progress to clinical RA, so what exactly determines this progression is unclear. Nevertheless, some clinicians do treat pre-RA. This was a major debate at the ACR’s 2022 meeting.

Studies have shown that early treatment of RA, including during the preclinical phase, can lead to better long-term outcomes. It can help reduce joint inflammation, control disease activity, and prevent or minimize irreversible joint damage. Early treatment also increases the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity, which improves quality of life for patients. Lifestyle interventions in these patients, including exercise, weight control, and cardiovascular health, may not prevent disease but may delay the onset of full-blown clinical RA.

The discovery of pre-RA has also underpinned the development of several clinical prevention trials in RA; specifically, the PRAIRI study demonstrated that a single dose of rituximab can delay the onset of clinically apparent RA in at-risk individuals. Additional studies are evaluating the ability of drugs, including abatacept, hydroxychloroquine, and methotrexate, to prevent or delay future RA.

Dual biologics target different pathways – ostensibly boosting efficacy – but unknowns, concerns over safety, and lack of evidence make the practice controversial.

Several randomized controlled trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of dual-biologic treatment of RA, but the results have been mixed, which has raised safety concerns. Overall, there is a paucity of data concerning the safety of the simultaneous use of more than one biologic. Dual therapy may constitute an efficacious and safe add-on treatment to biologic therapy, but properly conducted clinical investigations are needed. In the meantime, dual biologic therapy used at physicians’ discretion requires close monitoring of patients, with an emphasis on the safety profile.

Large language models (artificial intelligence [AI]) are rapidly taking hold in medicine. Many argue that they can enrich patient care, but they come with liability risks.

Large language models, such as AI chatbots or ChatGPT, can increase access to information, help with patient education, and support decision-making. Limitations include lack of personalization, clinical experience, and emotional connection. The use of large language models in health care is fraught with ethical and legal concerns.

Liability issues can arise if errors, inaccuracies, or adverse outcomes result from the use of AI chatbots. Determining liability may involve assessing factors such as the design and development of the AI system, training and deployment of the model, the communication of limitations and disclaimers to users, and the involvement of human healthcare professionals in the decision-making process.

To mitigate liability risks, AI chatbots in rheumatology must comply with applicable regulations and guidelines. Transparency in the capabilities and limitations of the system, clear communication of the boundaries of its advice, and the presence of human oversight are essential. Collaborating with legal experts and following best practices in the development and deployment of AI technologies can help to minimize liability concerns.

The benefits and risks associated with tapering DMARD therapy in patients with RA who have sustained remission of disease should be considered.

Although some patients with well-controlled RA have relapse after tapering or discontinuing DMARDs, some do not, making this treatment strategy a personal decision undertaken with a rheumatologist.

In the RETRO study, German researchers examined the effects of tapering or stopping DMARDs in patients whose RA was in sustained remission. In the phase 3 trial (n = 316), investigators randomized 303 patients with remission for ≥ 6 months who were on stable conventional synthetic or biologic DMARD treatment into three groups: (1) continuation on 100% DMARD dose, (2) tapering to 50% of the DMARD dose, and (3) 50% tapering followed by DMARD withdrawal. The proportion of patients who continued in remission at 1 year was 81.2% in group 1, 58.6% in group 2, and 43.3% in group 3. Predictors for flare-ups were female sex, longer disease duration, rheumatoid factor or ACPA positivity, and higher disease activity scores at baseline.

The abrupt cessation or reduction of DMARDs without medical supervision and guidance can exacerbate symptoms and result in disease flares.

The interplay between long COVID and RA is a recent phenomenon that needs to be considered.

RA shares similar symptoms with long COVID. Patients with a history of RA and a previous diagnosis of COVID-19 who have developed persistent joint or muscle symptoms pose a significant challenge to clinicians. Such patients may be experiencing long COVID or a flare-up of their preexisting rheumatic disease.

Immunosuppressive medications can potentially increase the risk for COVID-19, but it is not clear how they affect disease severity risk. Individuals with RA and long COVID need careful evaluation to balance the management of disease activity while considering the risks associated with immunosuppression and potential susceptibility to viral infections.

Dr. Dombrosky is a staff physician in rheumatology at Central Virginia VA Health Care System in Richmond. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On May 3, 2023, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory raising an alarm about what he called an “epidemic of loneliness” in the United States.

Now, I am not saying that Vivek Murthy read my book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t” – released in January and available in bookstores now – where, in chapter 11, I call attention to the problem of loneliness and its relationship to the exponential rise in deaths of despair. But Vivek, if you did, let me know. I could use the publicity.

No, of course the idea that loneliness is a public health issue is not new, but I’m glad to see it finally getting attention. At this point, studies have linked loneliness to heart disease, stroke, dementia, and premature death. And now, according to a new study, loneliness may be linked to Parkinson’s disease.

The UK Biobank is really a treasure trove of data for epidemiologists. I must see three to four studies a week coming out of this mega-dataset. This one, appearing in JAMA Neurology, caught my eye for its focus specifically on loneliness as a risk factor – something I’m hoping to see more of in the future.

The study examines data from just under 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom who answered a survey including the question “Do you often feel lonely?” between 2006 and 2010; 18.4% of people answered yes. Individuals’ electronic health record data were then monitored over time to see who would get a new diagnosis code consistent with Parkinson’s disease. Through 2021, 2822 people did – that’s just over half a percent.

So, now we do the statistics thing. Of the nonlonely folks, 2,273 went on to develop Parkinson’s disease. Of those who said they often feel lonely, 549 people did. The raw numbers here, to be honest, aren’t that compelling. Lonely people had an absolute risk for Parkinson’s disease about 0.03% higher than that of nonlonely people. Put another way, you’d need to take over 3,000 lonely souls and make them not lonely to prevent 1 case of Parkinson’s disease.

Still, the costs of loneliness are not measured exclusively in Parkinson’s disease, and I would argue that the real risks here come from other sources: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and suicide. Nevertheless, the weak but significant association with Parkinson’s disease reminds us that loneliness is a neurologic phenomenon. There is something about social connection that affects our brain in a way that is not just spiritual; it is actually biological.

Of course, people who say they are often lonely are different in other ways from people who report not being lonely. Lonely people, in this dataset, were younger, more likely to be female, less likely to have a college degree, in worse physical health, and engaged in more high-risk health behaviors like smoking.

The authors adjusted for all of these factors and found that, on the relative scale, lonely people were still about 20%-30% more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.

courtesy JAMA Neurology

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On May 3, 2023, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory raising an alarm about what he called an “epidemic of loneliness” in the United States.

Now, I am not saying that Vivek Murthy read my book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t” – released in January and available in bookstores now – where, in chapter 11, I call attention to the problem of loneliness and its relationship to the exponential rise in deaths of despair. But Vivek, if you did, let me know. I could use the publicity.

No, of course the idea that loneliness is a public health issue is not new, but I’m glad to see it finally getting attention. At this point, studies have linked loneliness to heart disease, stroke, dementia, and premature death. And now, according to a new study, loneliness may be linked to Parkinson’s disease.

The UK Biobank is really a treasure trove of data for epidemiologists. I must see three to four studies a week coming out of this mega-dataset. This one, appearing in JAMA Neurology, caught my eye for its focus specifically on loneliness as a risk factor – something I’m hoping to see more of in the future.

The study examines data from just under 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom who answered a survey including the question “Do you often feel lonely?” between 2006 and 2010; 18.4% of people answered yes. Individuals’ electronic health record data were then monitored over time to see who would get a new diagnosis code consistent with Parkinson’s disease. Through 2021, 2822 people did – that’s just over half a percent.

So, now we do the statistics thing. Of the nonlonely folks, 2,273 went on to develop Parkinson’s disease. Of those who said they often feel lonely, 549 people did. The raw numbers here, to be honest, aren’t that compelling. Lonely people had an absolute risk for Parkinson’s disease about 0.03% higher than that of nonlonely people. Put another way, you’d need to take over 3,000 lonely souls and make them not lonely to prevent 1 case of Parkinson’s disease.

Still, the costs of loneliness are not measured exclusively in Parkinson’s disease, and I would argue that the real risks here come from other sources: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and suicide. Nevertheless, the weak but significant association with Parkinson’s disease reminds us that loneliness is a neurologic phenomenon. There is something about social connection that affects our brain in a way that is not just spiritual; it is actually biological.

Of course, people who say they are often lonely are different in other ways from people who report not being lonely. Lonely people, in this dataset, were younger, more likely to be female, less likely to have a college degree, in worse physical health, and engaged in more high-risk health behaviors like smoking.

The authors adjusted for all of these factors and found that, on the relative scale, lonely people were still about 20%-30% more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.

courtesy JAMA Neurology

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On May 3, 2023, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory raising an alarm about what he called an “epidemic of loneliness” in the United States.

Now, I am not saying that Vivek Murthy read my book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t” – released in January and available in bookstores now – where, in chapter 11, I call attention to the problem of loneliness and its relationship to the exponential rise in deaths of despair. But Vivek, if you did, let me know. I could use the publicity.

No, of course the idea that loneliness is a public health issue is not new, but I’m glad to see it finally getting attention. At this point, studies have linked loneliness to heart disease, stroke, dementia, and premature death. And now, according to a new study, loneliness may be linked to Parkinson’s disease.

The UK Biobank is really a treasure trove of data for epidemiologists. I must see three to four studies a week coming out of this mega-dataset. This one, appearing in JAMA Neurology, caught my eye for its focus specifically on loneliness as a risk factor – something I’m hoping to see more of in the future.

The study examines data from just under 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom who answered a survey including the question “Do you often feel lonely?” between 2006 and 2010; 18.4% of people answered yes. Individuals’ electronic health record data were then monitored over time to see who would get a new diagnosis code consistent with Parkinson’s disease. Through 2021, 2822 people did – that’s just over half a percent.

So, now we do the statistics thing. Of the nonlonely folks, 2,273 went on to develop Parkinson’s disease. Of those who said they often feel lonely, 549 people did. The raw numbers here, to be honest, aren’t that compelling. Lonely people had an absolute risk for Parkinson’s disease about 0.03% higher than that of nonlonely people. Put another way, you’d need to take over 3,000 lonely souls and make them not lonely to prevent 1 case of Parkinson’s disease.

Still, the costs of loneliness are not measured exclusively in Parkinson’s disease, and I would argue that the real risks here come from other sources: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and suicide. Nevertheless, the weak but significant association with Parkinson’s disease reminds us that loneliness is a neurologic phenomenon. There is something about social connection that affects our brain in a way that is not just spiritual; it is actually biological.

Of course, people who say they are often lonely are different in other ways from people who report not being lonely. Lonely people, in this dataset, were younger, more likely to be female, less likely to have a college degree, in worse physical health, and engaged in more high-risk health behaviors like smoking.

The authors adjusted for all of these factors and found that, on the relative scale, lonely people were still about 20%-30% more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.

courtesy JAMA Neurology

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The short-form video hosting service TikTok has become a mainstream platform for individuals to share their ideas and educate the public regarding dermatologic diseases such as atopic dermatitis, alopecia, and acne. Users can create and post videos, leave comments, and indicate their interest in or approval of certain content by “liking” videos. In 2022, according to a Pew Research Center survey, approximately 67% of American teenagers aged 13 to 17 years reported using TikTok at least once.¹ This population, along with the rest of its users, are increasing their use of TikTok to share information on dermatologic topics such as acne and isotretinoin.^2,3 Spironolactone is an effective medication for acne but is not as widely known to the public as other acne medications such as retinoids, salicylic acid, and benzoyl peroxide. Being aware of youth exposure to media related to acne and spironolactone can help dermatologists understand gaps in education and refine their interactions with this patient population.

To gain insight into youth exposure to spironolactone, we conducted a search of TikTok on July 26, 2022, using the term #spironolactone to retrieve the top 50 videos identified by TikTok under the “Top” tab on spironolactone. Search results and the top 10 comments for each video were reviewed. The total number of views and likes for the top 50 videos were 6,735,992 and 851,856, respectively.

Videos were subdivided into educational information related to spironolactone and/or skin care (32% [16/50]), discussion of side effects of spironolactone (26% [13/50]), those with noticeable improvement of acne following treatment with spironolactone (20% [10/50]), recommendations to see a physician or dermatologist to treat acne (10% [5/50]), and other (12% [6/50]). Other takeaways from the top 50 videos included the following:

• Common side effects: irregular periods (10% [5/50]), frequent urination (8% [4/50]), dizziness/lightheadedness (8% [4/50]), and breast tenderness (6% [3/50])
• Longest reported use of spironolactone: 4 years, with complete acne resolution
• Average treatment length prior to noticeable results: 4 to 6 months, with the shortest being 1 month
• Reported dosages of spironolactone: ranged from 50 to 200 mg/d. The most common dosage was 100 mg/d (10% [5/50]). The lowest reported dosage was 50 mg/d (4% [2/50]), while the highest reported dosage was 200 mg/d (2% [1/50])
• Self-reported concurrent use of spironolactone with a combined oral contraceptive: drospirenoneTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol (4% [2/50]), norethindrone acetateTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol/ferrous fumarate (2% [1/50]), and norgestimateTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol (2% [1/50])
• Negative experiences with side effects and lack of acne improvement that led to treatment cessation: 8% (4/50).

Even though spironolactone is not as well-known as other treatments for acne, we found many TikTok users posting about, commenting on, and highlighting the relevance of this therapeutic option. There was no suggestion in any of the videos that spironolactone could be obtained without physician care and/or prescription. A prior report discussing youth sentiment of isotretinoin use on TikTok found that popular videos and videos with the most likes focused on the drug’s positive impact on acne improvement, while comments displayed heightened desires to learn more about isotretinoin and its side effects.³ Our analysis showed a similar response to spironolactone. In all videos showcasing the skin before and after treatment, there were noticeable improvements in the poster’s acne. Most of the video comments displayed a desire to learn more about spironolactone and its side effects. There also were many questions about time to noticeable results. In contrast to the study on isotretinoin,³ the most-liked spironolactone videos contained educational information about spironolactone and/or skin care rather than focusing solely on the impact of the drug on acne. Additionally, the study on isotretinoin found no videos mentioning the importance of seeing a dermatologist or other health care professional,³ while our search found multiple videos (10% [5/50]) on spironolactone that advised seeking physician help. In fact, several popular videos (8% [4/50]) were created by board-certified dermatologists who mainly focused on providing educational information. This difference in educational content may be attributed to spironolactone’s lesser-known function in treating acne. Furthermore, the comments suggested a growing interest in learning more about spironolactone as a treatment option for acne, specifically its mechanism of action and side effects.

With nearly 2 billion monthly active users globally and 94.1 million monthly active users in the United States (as of March 2023),⁴ TikTok is a popular social media platform that allows dermatologists to better understand youth sentiment on acne treatments such as spironolactone and isotretinoin and also provides an opportunity for medical education to reach a larger audience. This increased youth insight from TikTok can be utilized by dermatologists to make more informed decisions in developing patient-centered care that appeals to the adolescent population.

The short-form video hosting service TikTok has become a mainstream platform for individuals to share their ideas and educate the public regarding dermatologic diseases such as atopic dermatitis, alopecia, and acne. Users can create and post videos, leave comments, and indicate their interest in or approval of certain content by “liking” videos. In 2022, according to a Pew Research Center survey, approximately 67% of American teenagers aged 13 to 17 years reported using TikTok at least once.¹ This population, along with the rest of its users, are increasing their use of TikTok to share information on dermatologic topics such as acne and isotretinoin.^2,3 Spironolactone is an effective medication for acne but is not as widely known to the public as other acne medications such as retinoids, salicylic acid, and benzoyl peroxide. Being aware of youth exposure to media related to acne and spironolactone can help dermatologists understand gaps in education and refine their interactions with this patient population.

To gain insight into youth exposure to spironolactone, we conducted a search of TikTok on July 26, 2022, using the term #spironolactone to retrieve the top 50 videos identified by TikTok under the “Top” tab on spironolactone. Search results and the top 10 comments for each video were reviewed. The total number of views and likes for the top 50 videos were 6,735,992 and 851,856, respectively.

Videos were subdivided into educational information related to spironolactone and/or skin care (32% [16/50]), discussion of side effects of spironolactone (26% [13/50]), those with noticeable improvement of acne following treatment with spironolactone (20% [10/50]), recommendations to see a physician or dermatologist to treat acne (10% [5/50]), and other (12% [6/50]). Other takeaways from the top 50 videos included the following:

• Common side effects: irregular periods (10% [5/50]), frequent urination (8% [4/50]), dizziness/lightheadedness (8% [4/50]), and breast tenderness (6% [3/50])
• Longest reported use of spironolactone: 4 years, with complete acne resolution
• Average treatment length prior to noticeable results: 4 to 6 months, with the shortest being 1 month
• Reported dosages of spironolactone: ranged from 50 to 200 mg/d. The most common dosage was 100 mg/d (10% [5/50]). The lowest reported dosage was 50 mg/d (4% [2/50]), while the highest reported dosage was 200 mg/d (2% [1/50])
• Self-reported concurrent use of spironolactone with a combined oral contraceptive: drospirenoneTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol (4% [2/50]), norethindrone acetateTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol/ferrous fumarate (2% [1/50]), and norgestimateTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol (2% [1/50])
• Negative experiences with side effects and lack of acne improvement that led to treatment cessation: 8% (4/50).

Even though spironolactone is not as well-known as other treatments for acne, we found many TikTok users posting about, commenting on, and highlighting the relevance of this therapeutic option. There was no suggestion in any of the videos that spironolactone could be obtained without physician care and/or prescription. A prior report discussing youth sentiment of isotretinoin use on TikTok found that popular videos and videos with the most likes focused on the drug’s positive impact on acne improvement, while comments displayed heightened desires to learn more about isotretinoin and its side effects.³ Our analysis showed a similar response to spironolactone. In all videos showcasing the skin before and after treatment, there were noticeable improvements in the poster’s acne. Most of the video comments displayed a desire to learn more about spironolactone and its side effects. There also were many questions about time to noticeable results. In contrast to the study on isotretinoin,³ the most-liked spironolactone videos contained educational information about spironolactone and/or skin care rather than focusing solely on the impact of the drug on acne. Additionally, the study on isotretinoin found no videos mentioning the importance of seeing a dermatologist or other health care professional,³ while our search found multiple videos (10% [5/50]) on spironolactone that advised seeking physician help. In fact, several popular videos (8% [4/50]) were created by board-certified dermatologists who mainly focused on providing educational information. This difference in educational content may be attributed to spironolactone’s lesser-known function in treating acne. Furthermore, the comments suggested a growing interest in learning more about spironolactone as a treatment option for acne, specifically its mechanism of action and side effects.

With nearly 2 billion monthly active users globally and 94.1 million monthly active users in the United States (as of March 2023),⁴ TikTok is a popular social media platform that allows dermatologists to better understand youth sentiment on acne treatments such as spironolactone and isotretinoin and also provides an opportunity for medical education to reach a larger audience. This increased youth insight from TikTok can be utilized by dermatologists to make more informed decisions in developing patient-centered care that appeals to the adolescent population.

The short-form video hosting service TikTok has become a mainstream platform for individuals to share their ideas and educate the public regarding dermatologic diseases such as atopic dermatitis, alopecia, and acne. Users can create and post videos, leave comments, and indicate their interest in or approval of certain content by “liking” videos. In 2022, according to a Pew Research Center survey, approximately 67% of American teenagers aged 13 to 17 years reported using TikTok at least once.¹ This population, along with the rest of its users, are increasing their use of TikTok to share information on dermatologic topics such as acne and isotretinoin.^2,3 Spironolactone is an effective medication for acne but is not as widely known to the public as other acne medications such as retinoids, salicylic acid, and benzoyl peroxide. Being aware of youth exposure to media related to acne and spironolactone can help dermatologists understand gaps in education and refine their interactions with this patient population.

To gain insight into youth exposure to spironolactone, we conducted a search of TikTok on July 26, 2022, using the term #spironolactone to retrieve the top 50 videos identified by TikTok under the “Top” tab on spironolactone. Search results and the top 10 comments for each video were reviewed. The total number of views and likes for the top 50 videos were 6,735,992 and 851,856, respectively.

Videos were subdivided into educational information related to spironolactone and/or skin care (32% [16/50]), discussion of side effects of spironolactone (26% [13/50]), those with noticeable improvement of acne following treatment with spironolactone (20% [10/50]), recommendations to see a physician or dermatologist to treat acne (10% [5/50]), and other (12% [6/50]). Other takeaways from the top 50 videos included the following:

• Common side effects: irregular periods (10% [5/50]), frequent urination (8% [4/50]), dizziness/lightheadedness (8% [4/50]), and breast tenderness (6% [3/50])
• Longest reported use of spironolactone: 4 years, with complete acne resolution
• Average treatment length prior to noticeable results: 4 to 6 months, with the shortest being 1 month
• Reported dosages of spironolactone: ranged from 50 to 200 mg/d. The most common dosage was 100 mg/d (10% [5/50]). The lowest reported dosage was 50 mg/d (4% [2/50]), while the highest reported dosage was 200 mg/d (2% [1/50])
• Self-reported concurrent use of spironolactone with a combined oral contraceptive: drospirenoneTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol (4% [2/50]), norethindrone acetateTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol/ferrous fumarate (2% [1/50]), and norgestimateTimes New Roman–ethinyl estradiol (2% [1/50])
• Negative experiences with side effects and lack of acne improvement that led to treatment cessation: 8% (4/50).

Even though spironolactone is not as well-known as other treatments for acne, we found many TikTok users posting about, commenting on, and highlighting the relevance of this therapeutic option. There was no suggestion in any of the videos that spironolactone could be obtained without physician care and/or prescription. A prior report discussing youth sentiment of isotretinoin use on TikTok found that popular videos and videos with the most likes focused on the drug’s positive impact on acne improvement, while comments displayed heightened desires to learn more about isotretinoin and its side effects.³ Our analysis showed a similar response to spironolactone. In all videos showcasing the skin before and after treatment, there were noticeable improvements in the poster’s acne. Most of the video comments displayed a desire to learn more about spironolactone and its side effects. There also were many questions about time to noticeable results. In contrast to the study on isotretinoin,³ the most-liked spironolactone videos contained educational information about spironolactone and/or skin care rather than focusing solely on the impact of the drug on acne. Additionally, the study on isotretinoin found no videos mentioning the importance of seeing a dermatologist or other health care professional,³ while our search found multiple videos (10% [5/50]) on spironolactone that advised seeking physician help. In fact, several popular videos (8% [4/50]) were created by board-certified dermatologists who mainly focused on providing educational information. This difference in educational content may be attributed to spironolactone’s lesser-known function in treating acne. Furthermore, the comments suggested a growing interest in learning more about spironolactone as a treatment option for acne, specifically its mechanism of action and side effects.

With nearly 2 billion monthly active users globally and 94.1 million monthly active users in the United States (as of March 2023),⁴ TikTok is a popular social media platform that allows dermatologists to better understand youth sentiment on acne treatments such as spironolactone and isotretinoin and also provides an opportunity for medical education to reach a larger audience. This increased youth insight from TikTok can be utilized by dermatologists to make more informed decisions in developing patient-centered care that appeals to the adolescent population.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

Good riddance COVID-19 pandemic? Alas, that’s wishful thinking.

Many assume the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, but its biological, psychological, and social impacts continue to unfold. Its repercussions are etched into our brain, mind, emotions, behaviors, cognition, and outlook on life. Welcome to Pandemic 2.0.

Think of people who survive a heart attack. They experience multiple changes. Their initial ephemeral thrill of beating death is rapidly tempered with anxiety and worry about a future myocardial infarction and health issues in general. They become more risk-averse and more prone to dysphoria, irritability, and impatience. These individuals adopt a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise), which they had neglected before. They develop more disciplined personality traits, feel a greater appreciation for being alive, and develop a closer affinity to family and friends. Simple things they had overlooked become more meaningful. They reevaluate their life goals, including career vs personal fulfilment. Some may overindulge in pleasurable activities in case their heart fails again. Some of those changes may be abrupt or transient, while others may become permanent features of their lives. And some may seek psychotherapy, which they may never have considered before.

The pandemic is the equivalent of a “societal cardiac arrest.” Its immediate impact was devastating. Bustling cities suddenly became ghost towns. Schools were closed, and children were locked at home with their parents, who were laid off. Businesses shut down; the economy tanked. Anxiety about being infected and dying skyrocketed, triggering a universal acute stress reaction that worsened the mental health of the population, but especially of the millions with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Routine medical and dental care stopped. Television and social media disseminated alarming updates about massive intensive care unit admissions and morgues overflowing with corpses of COVID-19 victims. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was brewing across the nation as everyone faced this life-threatening pandemic.

The warp-speed development of vaccines for COVID-19 was equivalent to a defibrillator for the societal asystole, but the turmoil continued among the frazzled population. Some refused the vaccine due to conspiracy theories about their dangerous adverse effects. Employees in the private sector, state and federal government, and even the military who refused the mandatory vaccination lost their jobs. Controversy about shuttering schools and depriving children of face-to-face learning and socializing prompted some states to keep schools open, in contrast to most other states. Anger escalated about wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings such as at restaurants or houses of worship. Cynicism and mistrust sprouted about the competence and reliability of health “experts” due to some conflicting signals, precluding wide adherence to medical advice.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Those were the immediate repercussions of the pandemic. But what are its lingering effects? The sequelae extend across 1) the health care system; 2) the mental and emotional wellness of the population; 3) education; 4) work culture; 5) the economy; 6) societal operations; 7) technological and digital transformations; 8) mistrust in various societal institutions; 9) lack of confidence in medical information; and 10) preparedness for another pandemic due to a new strain.

As all psychiatrists know, the demand for mental health services continues to surge well after the pandemic has subsided, straining access to outpatient and inpatient care. Multiple lines of evidence confirm a deterioration in the long-term psychological well-being of children and adolescents because of lockdowns, social isolation, and anxiety about their own health and the health of their loved ones, leading to a serious rise in depression and suicidal behavior.^1-3

Contunue to: Adults who survived pandemic...

Adults who survived the pandemic experienced grief during 2 very stressful years, with no peace of mind or “normal living.” Many began to contemplate the meaning of life and reevaluate the future, waxing more philosophical and embarking on “personal archeology.” The fragility of life suddenly became a ubiquitous epiphany that changed people’s habits. Working from home, which was necessary during the pandemic, became a preferred option for many, and home became an emotional refuge, not just a physical, brick-and-mortar refuge. Millions decided to quit working altogether (the “great resignation”).

Sexual activity declined precipitously during the pandemic for singles (French kissing became “the kiss of death”) but intercourse increased among couples, eventuating in a significant rise in births after the pandemic (a baby boomlet). Sexual interest among college students declined after the pandemic, which may be either due to fear of getting infected or a sublimation of libido to invest the energy in other, less risky activities.

At the societal level, the pandemic’s sequelae included a major shift to virtual communications, not just in health care (telepsychiatry and telemedicine) but also in business. Technology saved the day during the nadir of the pandemic by enabling psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat their patients remotely. This was not technologically feasible during the past century’s influenza pandemics (1918, 1957, and 1968).

The intellectual and social development of an entire generation of children was stunted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences will continue to emerge in the years to come and may have ripple effects on this generation’s functioning. This may have particularly affected children of lower socioeconomic status, whose families cannot afford private schools and who are in dire need of good education to put them on the path of upward mobility.

As for adults who did not get infected by COVID-19, they suffered in 2 ways. First, they experienced a certain degree of brain atrophy, which is known to occur in chronic stress. This is attributed to persistent hypercortisolemia, which is toxic to the hippocampus. PTSD is well known to be associated with hippocampal atrophy.⁴ Additionally, a significant proportion of adults who contracted the COVID-19 virus and “recovered” were subsequently diagnosed with “long COVID,” with multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, mania, depression, and panic attacks, as well as memory impairment and loss of the senses of smell and taste. For these individuals, the pandemic has not subsided; they will carry its neuropsychiatric scars for a long time.

Continue to: Economically, the pandemic...

Economically, the pandemic caused a horrific economic setback in its acute phase, which prompted the government to spend trillions to support the unemployed as well as blighted businesses. The economic sequalae of deficit spending of unprecedented proportions due to the pandemic triggered painful inflation that is ongoing. Interestingly, the numerical terms “billion” and “trillion” lost their loftiness as very huge numbers. Few people realize that counting to a billion (at one number per second) would take 31.7 years, while counting to a trillion would take 31,700 years! The inflationary impact of spending $6 trillion (which would take almost 200,000 years to count) becomes mathematically jarring. And despite the heroic measures to support the economy, some business perished, although others were created, changing the human architecture of the economy.

The pandemic drastically suppressed the “hunting and gathering” instinct of humans and demolished the fabled concept of work ethic. The “great resignation,” coupled with a desire to work from home on a mass scale, led to a glut of vacant office space in many large cities, lowering the value of commercial real estate. Following the pandemic, there was an uptick in moving away from urban areas, reflecting a creative destruction and reversal of a decades-long trend to gravitate to cities to work or live.

There was also political fallout from the pandemic. Staying at home is conducive to overdosing on television and social media, leading to an intensification and ossification of political hyperpartisanship and the further displacement of religious beliefs by passionately entrenched political beliefs. This continues to have seismic effects on political stability and harmony in our country. The pandemic may have instigated new models of national voting, which triggered further political friction.

Other examples of the pandemic’s aftereffects include a shortage of lifeguards and truck drivers, replacing the traditional handshake with a first bump, and increased spending on pleasurable activities (reminiscent of the Roaring 20s following the 1918 influenza pandemic), which may reflect an instinct to “live it up” before another deadly pandemic occurs.

Ironically, as I was finishing writing this article in early September 2023, the government announced that COVID-19 cases were again rising and a new vaccine was available for the new viral “strain.”

Here we go again: as the French saying goes: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

Good riddance COVID-19 pandemic? Alas, that’s wishful thinking.

Many assume the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, but its biological, psychological, and social impacts continue to unfold. Its repercussions are etched into our brain, mind, emotions, behaviors, cognition, and outlook on life. Welcome to Pandemic 2.0.

Think of people who survive a heart attack. They experience multiple changes. Their initial ephemeral thrill of beating death is rapidly tempered with anxiety and worry about a future myocardial infarction and health issues in general. They become more risk-averse and more prone to dysphoria, irritability, and impatience. These individuals adopt a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise), which they had neglected before. They develop more disciplined personality traits, feel a greater appreciation for being alive, and develop a closer affinity to family and friends. Simple things they had overlooked become more meaningful. They reevaluate their life goals, including career vs personal fulfilment. Some may overindulge in pleasurable activities in case their heart fails again. Some of those changes may be abrupt or transient, while others may become permanent features of their lives. And some may seek psychotherapy, which they may never have considered before.

The pandemic is the equivalent of a “societal cardiac arrest.” Its immediate impact was devastating. Bustling cities suddenly became ghost towns. Schools were closed, and children were locked at home with their parents, who were laid off. Businesses shut down; the economy tanked. Anxiety about being infected and dying skyrocketed, triggering a universal acute stress reaction that worsened the mental health of the population, but especially of the millions with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Routine medical and dental care stopped. Television and social media disseminated alarming updates about massive intensive care unit admissions and morgues overflowing with corpses of COVID-19 victims. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was brewing across the nation as everyone faced this life-threatening pandemic.

The warp-speed development of vaccines for COVID-19 was equivalent to a defibrillator for the societal asystole, but the turmoil continued among the frazzled population. Some refused the vaccine due to conspiracy theories about their dangerous adverse effects. Employees in the private sector, state and federal government, and even the military who refused the mandatory vaccination lost their jobs. Controversy about shuttering schools and depriving children of face-to-face learning and socializing prompted some states to keep schools open, in contrast to most other states. Anger escalated about wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings such as at restaurants or houses of worship. Cynicism and mistrust sprouted about the competence and reliability of health “experts” due to some conflicting signals, precluding wide adherence to medical advice.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Those were the immediate repercussions of the pandemic. But what are its lingering effects? The sequelae extend across 1) the health care system; 2) the mental and emotional wellness of the population; 3) education; 4) work culture; 5) the economy; 6) societal operations; 7) technological and digital transformations; 8) mistrust in various societal institutions; 9) lack of confidence in medical information; and 10) preparedness for another pandemic due to a new strain.

As all psychiatrists know, the demand for mental health services continues to surge well after the pandemic has subsided, straining access to outpatient and inpatient care. Multiple lines of evidence confirm a deterioration in the long-term psychological well-being of children and adolescents because of lockdowns, social isolation, and anxiety about their own health and the health of their loved ones, leading to a serious rise in depression and suicidal behavior.^1-3

Contunue to: Adults who survived pandemic...

Adults who survived the pandemic experienced grief during 2 very stressful years, with no peace of mind or “normal living.” Many began to contemplate the meaning of life and reevaluate the future, waxing more philosophical and embarking on “personal archeology.” The fragility of life suddenly became a ubiquitous epiphany that changed people’s habits. Working from home, which was necessary during the pandemic, became a preferred option for many, and home became an emotional refuge, not just a physical, brick-and-mortar refuge. Millions decided to quit working altogether (the “great resignation”).

Sexual activity declined precipitously during the pandemic for singles (French kissing became “the kiss of death”) but intercourse increased among couples, eventuating in a significant rise in births after the pandemic (a baby boomlet). Sexual interest among college students declined after the pandemic, which may be either due to fear of getting infected or a sublimation of libido to invest the energy in other, less risky activities.

At the societal level, the pandemic’s sequelae included a major shift to virtual communications, not just in health care (telepsychiatry and telemedicine) but also in business. Technology saved the day during the nadir of the pandemic by enabling psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat their patients remotely. This was not technologically feasible during the past century’s influenza pandemics (1918, 1957, and 1968).

The intellectual and social development of an entire generation of children was stunted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences will continue to emerge in the years to come and may have ripple effects on this generation’s functioning. This may have particularly affected children of lower socioeconomic status, whose families cannot afford private schools and who are in dire need of good education to put them on the path of upward mobility.

As for adults who did not get infected by COVID-19, they suffered in 2 ways. First, they experienced a certain degree of brain atrophy, which is known to occur in chronic stress. This is attributed to persistent hypercortisolemia, which is toxic to the hippocampus. PTSD is well known to be associated with hippocampal atrophy.⁴ Additionally, a significant proportion of adults who contracted the COVID-19 virus and “recovered” were subsequently diagnosed with “long COVID,” with multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, mania, depression, and panic attacks, as well as memory impairment and loss of the senses of smell and taste. For these individuals, the pandemic has not subsided; they will carry its neuropsychiatric scars for a long time.

Continue to: Economically, the pandemic...

Economically, the pandemic caused a horrific economic setback in its acute phase, which prompted the government to spend trillions to support the unemployed as well as blighted businesses. The economic sequalae of deficit spending of unprecedented proportions due to the pandemic triggered painful inflation that is ongoing. Interestingly, the numerical terms “billion” and “trillion” lost their loftiness as very huge numbers. Few people realize that counting to a billion (at one number per second) would take 31.7 years, while counting to a trillion would take 31,700 years! The inflationary impact of spending $6 trillion (which would take almost 200,000 years to count) becomes mathematically jarring. And despite the heroic measures to support the economy, some business perished, although others were created, changing the human architecture of the economy.

The pandemic drastically suppressed the “hunting and gathering” instinct of humans and demolished the fabled concept of work ethic. The “great resignation,” coupled with a desire to work from home on a mass scale, led to a glut of vacant office space in many large cities, lowering the value of commercial real estate. Following the pandemic, there was an uptick in moving away from urban areas, reflecting a creative destruction and reversal of a decades-long trend to gravitate to cities to work or live.

There was also political fallout from the pandemic. Staying at home is conducive to overdosing on television and social media, leading to an intensification and ossification of political hyperpartisanship and the further displacement of religious beliefs by passionately entrenched political beliefs. This continues to have seismic effects on political stability and harmony in our country. The pandemic may have instigated new models of national voting, which triggered further political friction.

Other examples of the pandemic’s aftereffects include a shortage of lifeguards and truck drivers, replacing the traditional handshake with a first bump, and increased spending on pleasurable activities (reminiscent of the Roaring 20s following the 1918 influenza pandemic), which may reflect an instinct to “live it up” before another deadly pandemic occurs.

Ironically, as I was finishing writing this article in early September 2023, the government announced that COVID-19 cases were again rising and a new vaccine was available for the new viral “strain.”

Here we go again: as the French saying goes: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

Good riddance COVID-19 pandemic? Alas, that’s wishful thinking.

Many assume the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, but its biological, psychological, and social impacts continue to unfold. Its repercussions are etched into our brain, mind, emotions, behaviors, cognition, and outlook on life. Welcome to Pandemic 2.0.

Think of people who survive a heart attack. They experience multiple changes. Their initial ephemeral thrill of beating death is rapidly tempered with anxiety and worry about a future myocardial infarction and health issues in general. They become more risk-averse and more prone to dysphoria, irritability, and impatience. These individuals adopt a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise), which they had neglected before. They develop more disciplined personality traits, feel a greater appreciation for being alive, and develop a closer affinity to family and friends. Simple things they had overlooked become more meaningful. They reevaluate their life goals, including career vs personal fulfilment. Some may overindulge in pleasurable activities in case their heart fails again. Some of those changes may be abrupt or transient, while others may become permanent features of their lives. And some may seek psychotherapy, which they may never have considered before.

The pandemic is the equivalent of a “societal cardiac arrest.” Its immediate impact was devastating. Bustling cities suddenly became ghost towns. Schools were closed, and children were locked at home with their parents, who were laid off. Businesses shut down; the economy tanked. Anxiety about being infected and dying skyrocketed, triggering a universal acute stress reaction that worsened the mental health of the population, but especially of the millions with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Routine medical and dental care stopped. Television and social media disseminated alarming updates about massive intensive care unit admissions and morgues overflowing with corpses of COVID-19 victims. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was brewing across the nation as everyone faced this life-threatening pandemic.

The warp-speed development of vaccines for COVID-19 was equivalent to a defibrillator for the societal asystole, but the turmoil continued among the frazzled population. Some refused the vaccine due to conspiracy theories about their dangerous adverse effects. Employees in the private sector, state and federal government, and even the military who refused the mandatory vaccination lost their jobs. Controversy about shuttering schools and depriving children of face-to-face learning and socializing prompted some states to keep schools open, in contrast to most other states. Anger escalated about wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings such as at restaurants or houses of worship. Cynicism and mistrust sprouted about the competence and reliability of health “experts” due to some conflicting signals, precluding wide adherence to medical advice.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Those were the immediate repercussions of the pandemic. But what are its lingering effects? The sequelae extend across 1) the health care system; 2) the mental and emotional wellness of the population; 3) education; 4) work culture; 5) the economy; 6) societal operations; 7) technological and digital transformations; 8) mistrust in various societal institutions; 9) lack of confidence in medical information; and 10) preparedness for another pandemic due to a new strain.

As all psychiatrists know, the demand for mental health services continues to surge well after the pandemic has subsided, straining access to outpatient and inpatient care. Multiple lines of evidence confirm a deterioration in the long-term psychological well-being of children and adolescents because of lockdowns, social isolation, and anxiety about their own health and the health of their loved ones, leading to a serious rise in depression and suicidal behavior.^1-3

Contunue to: Adults who survived pandemic...

Adults who survived the pandemic experienced grief during 2 very stressful years, with no peace of mind or “normal living.” Many began to contemplate the meaning of life and reevaluate the future, waxing more philosophical and embarking on “personal archeology.” The fragility of life suddenly became a ubiquitous epiphany that changed people’s habits. Working from home, which was necessary during the pandemic, became a preferred option for many, and home became an emotional refuge, not just a physical, brick-and-mortar refuge. Millions decided to quit working altogether (the “great resignation”).

Sexual activity declined precipitously during the pandemic for singles (French kissing became “the kiss of death”) but intercourse increased among couples, eventuating in a significant rise in births after the pandemic (a baby boomlet). Sexual interest among college students declined after the pandemic, which may be either due to fear of getting infected or a sublimation of libido to invest the energy in other, less risky activities.

At the societal level, the pandemic’s sequelae included a major shift to virtual communications, not just in health care (telepsychiatry and telemedicine) but also in business. Technology saved the day during the nadir of the pandemic by enabling psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat their patients remotely. This was not technologically feasible during the past century’s influenza pandemics (1918, 1957, and 1968).

The intellectual and social development of an entire generation of children was stunted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences will continue to emerge in the years to come and may have ripple effects on this generation’s functioning. This may have particularly affected children of lower socioeconomic status, whose families cannot afford private schools and who are in dire need of good education to put them on the path of upward mobility.

As for adults who did not get infected by COVID-19, they suffered in 2 ways. First, they experienced a certain degree of brain atrophy, which is known to occur in chronic stress. This is attributed to persistent hypercortisolemia, which is toxic to the hippocampus. PTSD is well known to be associated with hippocampal atrophy.⁴ Additionally, a significant proportion of adults who contracted the COVID-19 virus and “recovered” were subsequently diagnosed with “long COVID,” with multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, mania, depression, and panic attacks, as well as memory impairment and loss of the senses of smell and taste. For these individuals, the pandemic has not subsided; they will carry its neuropsychiatric scars for a long time.

Continue to: Economically, the pandemic...

Economically, the pandemic caused a horrific economic setback in its acute phase, which prompted the government to spend trillions to support the unemployed as well as blighted businesses. The economic sequalae of deficit spending of unprecedented proportions due to the pandemic triggered painful inflation that is ongoing. Interestingly, the numerical terms “billion” and “trillion” lost their loftiness as very huge numbers. Few people realize that counting to a billion (at one number per second) would take 31.7 years, while counting to a trillion would take 31,700 years! The inflationary impact of spending $6 trillion (which would take almost 200,000 years to count) becomes mathematically jarring. And despite the heroic measures to support the economy, some business perished, although others were created, changing the human architecture of the economy.

The pandemic drastically suppressed the “hunting and gathering” instinct of humans and demolished the fabled concept of work ethic. The “great resignation,” coupled with a desire to work from home on a mass scale, led to a glut of vacant office space in many large cities, lowering the value of commercial real estate. Following the pandemic, there was an uptick in moving away from urban areas, reflecting a creative destruction and reversal of a decades-long trend to gravitate to cities to work or live.

There was also political fallout from the pandemic. Staying at home is conducive to overdosing on television and social media, leading to an intensification and ossification of political hyperpartisanship and the further displacement of religious beliefs by passionately entrenched political beliefs. This continues to have seismic effects on political stability and harmony in our country. The pandemic may have instigated new models of national voting, which triggered further political friction.

Other examples of the pandemic’s aftereffects include a shortage of lifeguards and truck drivers, replacing the traditional handshake with a first bump, and increased spending on pleasurable activities (reminiscent of the Roaring 20s following the 1918 influenza pandemic), which may reflect an instinct to “live it up” before another deadly pandemic occurs.

Ironically, as I was finishing writing this article in early September 2023, the government announced that COVID-19 cases were again rising and a new vaccine was available for the new viral “strain.”

Here we go again: as the French saying goes: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…