COVID-19 Updates

Skin symptoms, like systemic symptoms, differ by COVID-19 variant, according to a large retrospective study that compared clinical data from more than 300,000 participants in the United Kingdom during the Omicron and Delta waves.

Among the key findings, the study shows that skin involvement during the Omicron wave was less frequent than during the Delta wave (11.4% vs. 17.6%), skin symptoms generally resolved more quickly, and that the risk for skin symptoms was similar whether patients had or had not been vaccinated, according to a team led by Alessia Visconti, PhD, a research fellow in the department of twin research and genetic epidemiology, King’s College, London.

These data are consistent with the experience of those dermatologists who have been following this area closely, according to Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“Anecdotally, we thought we were seeing fewer skin symptoms with Omicron versus Delta and the ancestral strains, and now this study shows it is true,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also principal investigator of the American Academy of Dermatology’s International Dermatology COVID-19 Registry.

The data also confirm that the skin is less likely to be involved than in past waves of COVID-19 infections.

“Up to this point, it was hard to know if we were seeing fewer referrals for COVID-related skin rashes or if clinicians had just become more comfortable with these rashes and were not referring them as often,” added Dr. Freeman, who was among the study coauthors.

Data captured from 348,691 patients

The data from the study was generated by 348,691 users in the United Kingdom of the ZOE COVID study app, a smartphone-based tool introduced relatively early in the pandemic. It asked users to provide demographic data, information on COVID-19 symptoms, including those involving the skin, and treatments. Of 33 COVID-related symptoms included in the app, five related to the skin (acral rash, burning rash, erythematopapular rash, urticarial rash, and unusual hair loss).

While the focus of this study was to compare skin manifestations during the Omicron wave with the Delta wave of COVID-19, the investigators also had data on the experience in 2020 with wild-type COVID-19 that preceded both variants. Overall, this showed a stepwise decline in skin symptoms overall, as well in as skin symptoms that occurred in the absence of systemic symptoms.

“The shift in the skin manifestations makes sense when you think about the change that is also being seen in the systemic symptoms,” said Dr. Freeman, referring to lower rates of cough and loss of smell but higher rates of sore throat and fatigue. “Omicron is achieving immune escape, which is why there is a shift in involved tissues,” she said in an interview.

Previous data collected during the wild-type COVID-19 stage of the pandemic by the same group of investigators showed that 17% of patients reported skin rash as the first symptom of COVID-19 infection, and 21% reported skin rash as the only clinical sign of infection.

In the Delta and Omicron waves, skin rash was an isolated initial symptom in only 0.8% and 0.5% of patients, respectively. (The authors noted that, in the United Kingdom, the first documented samples of the Delta variant were detected in October 2020, and the first documented samples of the Omicron variant were detected in November 2021.)

During the early stages of wild-type COVID, an acral rash was characteristic, occurring in 3.1% of patients, according to the U.K. data. In the Delta wave, acral rashes, at an incidence of 1.1% remained positively correlated with a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. In the Omicron wave, acral rashes were observed in only 0.7% of patients and were no longer statistically correlated with a positive COVID diagnosis.


 

Characteristic cutaneous symptoms are evolving

Early in the course of the COVID-19 epidemic, more than 30 types of rashes were observed in patients with COVID-19 infection. Cutaneous symptoms continue to be diverse, but some, such as acral rash, are being seen less frequently. For example, the odds ratio of a positive COVID-19 diagnosis among those with an erythematopapular rash fell from 1.76 to 1.08 between the Delta and Omicron waves.

While specific cutaneous symptoms are less predictive of a diagnosis of COVID-19, clinicians should not discount cutaneous symptoms as a sign of disease, according to Veronique Bataille, MD, PhD, a consultant dermatologist at King’s College.

“You need to keep an open mind” regarding cutaneous signs and a diagnosis of COVID-19, Dr. Bataille, one of the coauthors of the U.K. report, said in an interview. In general, she considers a low threshold of suspicion appropriate. “If the patient has no past history of skin disease and no other triggers for a rash, then, in a high prevalence area, COVID must be suspected.”

In most cases, the rash resolves on its own, but Dr. Bataille emphasized the need for individualized care. Even as the risk of life-threatening COVID-19 infections appears to be diminishing with current variants, cutaneous manifestations can be severe.

“There are cases of long COVID affecting the skin, such as urticaria or a lichenoid erythematopapular rash, both of which can be very pruritic and difficult to control,” she said.

Dr. Freeman echoed the importance of an individualized approach. She agreed that most cutaneous symptoms are self-limited, but there are exceptions and treatments vary for the different types of skin involvement. “I think another point to consider when examining skin lesions is monkey pox. The fact that these are overlapping outbreaks should not be ignored. You need to be alert for both.”

Dr. Visconti, Dr. Freeman, and Dr. Bataille reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Skin symptoms, like systemic symptoms, differ by COVID-19 variant, according to a large retrospective study that compared clinical data from more than 300,000 participants in the United Kingdom during the Omicron and Delta waves.

Among the key findings, the study shows that skin involvement during the Omicron wave was less frequent than during the Delta wave (11.4% vs. 17.6%), skin symptoms generally resolved more quickly, and that the risk for skin symptoms was similar whether patients had or had not been vaccinated, according to a team led by Alessia Visconti, PhD, a research fellow in the department of twin research and genetic epidemiology, King’s College, London.

These data are consistent with the experience of those dermatologists who have been following this area closely, according to Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“Anecdotally, we thought we were seeing fewer skin symptoms with Omicron versus Delta and the ancestral strains, and now this study shows it is true,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also principal investigator of the American Academy of Dermatology’s International Dermatology COVID-19 Registry.

The data also confirm that the skin is less likely to be involved than in past waves of COVID-19 infections.

“Up to this point, it was hard to know if we were seeing fewer referrals for COVID-related skin rashes or if clinicians had just become more comfortable with these rashes and were not referring them as often,” added Dr. Freeman, who was among the study coauthors.

Data captured from 348,691 patients

The data from the study was generated by 348,691 users in the United Kingdom of the ZOE COVID study app, a smartphone-based tool introduced relatively early in the pandemic. It asked users to provide demographic data, information on COVID-19 symptoms, including those involving the skin, and treatments. Of 33 COVID-related symptoms included in the app, five related to the skin (acral rash, burning rash, erythematopapular rash, urticarial rash, and unusual hair loss).

While the focus of this study was to compare skin manifestations during the Omicron wave with the Delta wave of COVID-19, the investigators also had data on the experience in 2020 with wild-type COVID-19 that preceded both variants. Overall, this showed a stepwise decline in skin symptoms overall, as well in as skin symptoms that occurred in the absence of systemic symptoms.

“The shift in the skin manifestations makes sense when you think about the change that is also being seen in the systemic symptoms,” said Dr. Freeman, referring to lower rates of cough and loss of smell but higher rates of sore throat and fatigue. “Omicron is achieving immune escape, which is why there is a shift in involved tissues,” she said in an interview.

Previous data collected during the wild-type COVID-19 stage of the pandemic by the same group of investigators showed that 17% of patients reported skin rash as the first symptom of COVID-19 infection, and 21% reported skin rash as the only clinical sign of infection.

In the Delta and Omicron waves, skin rash was an isolated initial symptom in only 0.8% and 0.5% of patients, respectively. (The authors noted that, in the United Kingdom, the first documented samples of the Delta variant were detected in October 2020, and the first documented samples of the Omicron variant were detected in November 2021.)

During the early stages of wild-type COVID, an acral rash was characteristic, occurring in 3.1% of patients, according to the U.K. data. In the Delta wave, acral rashes, at an incidence of 1.1% remained positively correlated with a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. In the Omicron wave, acral rashes were observed in only 0.7% of patients and were no longer statistically correlated with a positive COVID diagnosis.


 

Characteristic cutaneous symptoms are evolving

Early in the course of the COVID-19 epidemic, more than 30 types of rashes were observed in patients with COVID-19 infection. Cutaneous symptoms continue to be diverse, but some, such as acral rash, are being seen less frequently. For example, the odds ratio of a positive COVID-19 diagnosis among those with an erythematopapular rash fell from 1.76 to 1.08 between the Delta and Omicron waves.

While specific cutaneous symptoms are less predictive of a diagnosis of COVID-19, clinicians should not discount cutaneous symptoms as a sign of disease, according to Veronique Bataille, MD, PhD, a consultant dermatologist at King’s College.

“You need to keep an open mind” regarding cutaneous signs and a diagnosis of COVID-19, Dr. Bataille, one of the coauthors of the U.K. report, said in an interview. In general, she considers a low threshold of suspicion appropriate. “If the patient has no past history of skin disease and no other triggers for a rash, then, in a high prevalence area, COVID must be suspected.”

In most cases, the rash resolves on its own, but Dr. Bataille emphasized the need for individualized care. Even as the risk of life-threatening COVID-19 infections appears to be diminishing with current variants, cutaneous manifestations can be severe.

“There are cases of long COVID affecting the skin, such as urticaria or a lichenoid erythematopapular rash, both of which can be very pruritic and difficult to control,” she said.

Dr. Freeman echoed the importance of an individualized approach. She agreed that most cutaneous symptoms are self-limited, but there are exceptions and treatments vary for the different types of skin involvement. “I think another point to consider when examining skin lesions is monkey pox. The fact that these are overlapping outbreaks should not be ignored. You need to be alert for both.”

Dr. Visconti, Dr. Freeman, and Dr. Bataille reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Skin symptoms, like systemic symptoms, differ by COVID-19 variant, according to a large retrospective study that compared clinical data from more than 300,000 participants in the United Kingdom during the Omicron and Delta waves.

Among the key findings, the study shows that skin involvement during the Omicron wave was less frequent than during the Delta wave (11.4% vs. 17.6%), skin symptoms generally resolved more quickly, and that the risk for skin symptoms was similar whether patients had or had not been vaccinated, according to a team led by Alessia Visconti, PhD, a research fellow in the department of twin research and genetic epidemiology, King’s College, London.

These data are consistent with the experience of those dermatologists who have been following this area closely, according to Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“Anecdotally, we thought we were seeing fewer skin symptoms with Omicron versus Delta and the ancestral strains, and now this study shows it is true,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also principal investigator of the American Academy of Dermatology’s International Dermatology COVID-19 Registry.

The data also confirm that the skin is less likely to be involved than in past waves of COVID-19 infections.

“Up to this point, it was hard to know if we were seeing fewer referrals for COVID-related skin rashes or if clinicians had just become more comfortable with these rashes and were not referring them as often,” added Dr. Freeman, who was among the study coauthors.

Data captured from 348,691 patients

The data from the study was generated by 348,691 users in the United Kingdom of the ZOE COVID study app, a smartphone-based tool introduced relatively early in the pandemic. It asked users to provide demographic data, information on COVID-19 symptoms, including those involving the skin, and treatments. Of 33 COVID-related symptoms included in the app, five related to the skin (acral rash, burning rash, erythematopapular rash, urticarial rash, and unusual hair loss).

While the focus of this study was to compare skin manifestations during the Omicron wave with the Delta wave of COVID-19, the investigators also had data on the experience in 2020 with wild-type COVID-19 that preceded both variants. Overall, this showed a stepwise decline in skin symptoms overall, as well in as skin symptoms that occurred in the absence of systemic symptoms.

“The shift in the skin manifestations makes sense when you think about the change that is also being seen in the systemic symptoms,” said Dr. Freeman, referring to lower rates of cough and loss of smell but higher rates of sore throat and fatigue. “Omicron is achieving immune escape, which is why there is a shift in involved tissues,” she said in an interview.

Previous data collected during the wild-type COVID-19 stage of the pandemic by the same group of investigators showed that 17% of patients reported skin rash as the first symptom of COVID-19 infection, and 21% reported skin rash as the only clinical sign of infection.

In the Delta and Omicron waves, skin rash was an isolated initial symptom in only 0.8% and 0.5% of patients, respectively. (The authors noted that, in the United Kingdom, the first documented samples of the Delta variant were detected in October 2020, and the first documented samples of the Omicron variant were detected in November 2021.)

During the early stages of wild-type COVID, an acral rash was characteristic, occurring in 3.1% of patients, according to the U.K. data. In the Delta wave, acral rashes, at an incidence of 1.1% remained positively correlated with a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. In the Omicron wave, acral rashes were observed in only 0.7% of patients and were no longer statistically correlated with a positive COVID diagnosis.


 

Characteristic cutaneous symptoms are evolving

Early in the course of the COVID-19 epidemic, more than 30 types of rashes were observed in patients with COVID-19 infection. Cutaneous symptoms continue to be diverse, but some, such as acral rash, are being seen less frequently. For example, the odds ratio of a positive COVID-19 diagnosis among those with an erythematopapular rash fell from 1.76 to 1.08 between the Delta and Omicron waves.

While specific cutaneous symptoms are less predictive of a diagnosis of COVID-19, clinicians should not discount cutaneous symptoms as a sign of disease, according to Veronique Bataille, MD, PhD, a consultant dermatologist at King’s College.

“You need to keep an open mind” regarding cutaneous signs and a diagnosis of COVID-19, Dr. Bataille, one of the coauthors of the U.K. report, said in an interview. In general, she considers a low threshold of suspicion appropriate. “If the patient has no past history of skin disease and no other triggers for a rash, then, in a high prevalence area, COVID must be suspected.”

In most cases, the rash resolves on its own, but Dr. Bataille emphasized the need for individualized care. Even as the risk of life-threatening COVID-19 infections appears to be diminishing with current variants, cutaneous manifestations can be severe.

“There are cases of long COVID affecting the skin, such as urticaria or a lichenoid erythematopapular rash, both of which can be very pruritic and difficult to control,” she said.

Dr. Freeman echoed the importance of an individualized approach. She agreed that most cutaneous symptoms are self-limited, but there are exceptions and treatments vary for the different types of skin involvement. “I think another point to consider when examining skin lesions is monkey pox. The fact that these are overlapping outbreaks should not be ignored. You need to be alert for both.”

Dr. Visconti, Dr. Freeman, and Dr. Bataille reported no potential conflicts of interest.

There was no significant increase in the post-COVID pandemic monthly rate of incident diabetes in children and youth in Ontario, compared with the pre-pandemic rate, in new research.

This contrasts with findings from a U.S. study and a German study, but this is “not the final word” about this possible association, lead author Rayzel Shulman, MD, admits, since the study may have been underpowered.

The population-based, cross-sectional study was published recently as a research letter in JAMA Open.

The researchers found a nonsignificant increase in the monthly rate of new diabetes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the 3 prior years (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval).
 

New study contrasts with previous reports

This differs from a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which COVID-19 infection was associated with a significant increase in new onset of diabetes in children during March 2020 through June 2021, “although some experts have criticized the study methods and conclusion validity,” Dr. Shulman and colleagues write.

Another study, from Germany, reported a significant 1.15-fold increase in type 1 diabetes in children during the pandemic, they note.

The current study may have been underpowered and too small to show a significant association between COVID-19 and new diabetes, the researchers acknowledge. 

And the 1.30 upper limit of the confidence interval shows that it “cannot rule out a possible 1.3-fold increase” in relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes related to COVID, Dr. Shulman explained to this news organization. 

It will be important to see how the rates have changed since September 2021 (the end of the current study), added Dr. Shulman, an adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and a physician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The current study did find a decreased (delayed) rate of diagnosis of new diabetes during the first months of the pandemic when there were lockdowns, followed by a “catch-up” increase in rates later on, as has been reported earlier.

“Our study is definitely not the final word on this,” Dr. Shulman summarized in a statement from ICES. “However, our findings call into question whether a direct association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes in children exists.”
 

COVID-diabetes link?

The researchers analyzed health administrative data from January 2017 to September 2021.

They identified 2,700,178 children and youth in Ontario who were under age 18 in 2021, who had a mean age of 9.2, and about half were girls.

Between November 2020 and April 2021, an estimated 3.3% of children in Ontario had a SARS-COV-2 infection.

New diagnoses of diabetes in this age group are mostly type 1 diabetes, based on previous studies.

The rate of incident diabetes was 15%-32% lower during the first 3 months of the pandemic, March-May 2020 (1.67-2.34 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic monthly rate during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2.54-2.59 cases per 100,000).

The rate of incident diabetes was 33%-50% higher during February to July 2021 (3.48-4.18 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic rate.

The pre-pandemic and pandemic monthly rates of incident diabetes were similar during the other months.

The group concludes: “The lack of both an observable increase in overall diabetes incidence among children during the 18-month pandemic restrictions [in this Ontario study] and a plausible biological mechanism call into question an association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes.”

More research is needed. “Given the variability in monthly [relative risks], additional population-based, longer-term data are needed to examine the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 and diabetes risk among children,” the authors write.

This study was supported by ICES (which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health) and by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Shulman reported receiving fees from Dexcom outside the submitted work, and she and three other authors reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work.

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

There was no significant increase in the post-COVID pandemic monthly rate of incident diabetes in children and youth in Ontario, compared with the pre-pandemic rate, in new research.

This contrasts with findings from a U.S. study and a German study, but this is “not the final word” about this possible association, lead author Rayzel Shulman, MD, admits, since the study may have been underpowered.

The population-based, cross-sectional study was published recently as a research letter in JAMA Open.

The researchers found a nonsignificant increase in the monthly rate of new diabetes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the 3 prior years (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval).
 

New study contrasts with previous reports

This differs from a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which COVID-19 infection was associated with a significant increase in new onset of diabetes in children during March 2020 through June 2021, “although some experts have criticized the study methods and conclusion validity,” Dr. Shulman and colleagues write.

Another study, from Germany, reported a significant 1.15-fold increase in type 1 diabetes in children during the pandemic, they note.

The current study may have been underpowered and too small to show a significant association between COVID-19 and new diabetes, the researchers acknowledge. 

And the 1.30 upper limit of the confidence interval shows that it “cannot rule out a possible 1.3-fold increase” in relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes related to COVID, Dr. Shulman explained to this news organization. 

It will be important to see how the rates have changed since September 2021 (the end of the current study), added Dr. Shulman, an adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and a physician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The current study did find a decreased (delayed) rate of diagnosis of new diabetes during the first months of the pandemic when there were lockdowns, followed by a “catch-up” increase in rates later on, as has been reported earlier.

“Our study is definitely not the final word on this,” Dr. Shulman summarized in a statement from ICES. “However, our findings call into question whether a direct association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes in children exists.”
 

COVID-diabetes link?

The researchers analyzed health administrative data from January 2017 to September 2021.

They identified 2,700,178 children and youth in Ontario who were under age 18 in 2021, who had a mean age of 9.2, and about half were girls.

Between November 2020 and April 2021, an estimated 3.3% of children in Ontario had a SARS-COV-2 infection.

New diagnoses of diabetes in this age group are mostly type 1 diabetes, based on previous studies.

The rate of incident diabetes was 15%-32% lower during the first 3 months of the pandemic, March-May 2020 (1.67-2.34 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic monthly rate during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2.54-2.59 cases per 100,000).

The rate of incident diabetes was 33%-50% higher during February to July 2021 (3.48-4.18 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic rate.

The pre-pandemic and pandemic monthly rates of incident diabetes were similar during the other months.

The group concludes: “The lack of both an observable increase in overall diabetes incidence among children during the 18-month pandemic restrictions [in this Ontario study] and a plausible biological mechanism call into question an association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes.”

More research is needed. “Given the variability in monthly [relative risks], additional population-based, longer-term data are needed to examine the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 and diabetes risk among children,” the authors write.

This study was supported by ICES (which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health) and by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Shulman reported receiving fees from Dexcom outside the submitted work, and she and three other authors reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work.

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

There was no significant increase in the post-COVID pandemic monthly rate of incident diabetes in children and youth in Ontario, compared with the pre-pandemic rate, in new research.

This contrasts with findings from a U.S. study and a German study, but this is “not the final word” about this possible association, lead author Rayzel Shulman, MD, admits, since the study may have been underpowered.

The population-based, cross-sectional study was published recently as a research letter in JAMA Open.

The researchers found a nonsignificant increase in the monthly rate of new diabetes during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the 3 prior years (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval).
 

New study contrasts with previous reports

This differs from a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which COVID-19 infection was associated with a significant increase in new onset of diabetes in children during March 2020 through June 2021, “although some experts have criticized the study methods and conclusion validity,” Dr. Shulman and colleagues write.

Another study, from Germany, reported a significant 1.15-fold increase in type 1 diabetes in children during the pandemic, they note.

The current study may have been underpowered and too small to show a significant association between COVID-19 and new diabetes, the researchers acknowledge. 

And the 1.30 upper limit of the confidence interval shows that it “cannot rule out a possible 1.3-fold increase” in relative risk of a diagnosis of diabetes related to COVID, Dr. Shulman explained to this news organization. 

It will be important to see how the rates have changed since September 2021 (the end of the current study), added Dr. Shulman, an adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and a physician and scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The current study did find a decreased (delayed) rate of diagnosis of new diabetes during the first months of the pandemic when there were lockdowns, followed by a “catch-up” increase in rates later on, as has been reported earlier.

“Our study is definitely not the final word on this,” Dr. Shulman summarized in a statement from ICES. “However, our findings call into question whether a direct association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes in children exists.”
 

COVID-diabetes link?

The researchers analyzed health administrative data from January 2017 to September 2021.

They identified 2,700,178 children and youth in Ontario who were under age 18 in 2021, who had a mean age of 9.2, and about half were girls.

Between November 2020 and April 2021, an estimated 3.3% of children in Ontario had a SARS-COV-2 infection.

New diagnoses of diabetes in this age group are mostly type 1 diabetes, based on previous studies.

The rate of incident diabetes was 15%-32% lower during the first 3 months of the pandemic, March-May 2020 (1.67-2.34 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic monthly rate during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (2.54-2.59 cases per 100,000).

The rate of incident diabetes was 33%-50% higher during February to July 2021 (3.48-4.18 cases per 100,000), compared with the pre-pandemic rate.

The pre-pandemic and pandemic monthly rates of incident diabetes were similar during the other months.

The group concludes: “The lack of both an observable increase in overall diabetes incidence among children during the 18-month pandemic restrictions [in this Ontario study] and a plausible biological mechanism call into question an association between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes.”

More research is needed. “Given the variability in monthly [relative risks], additional population-based, longer-term data are needed to examine the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 and diabetes risk among children,” the authors write.

This study was supported by ICES (which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health) and by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Shulman reported receiving fees from Dexcom outside the submitted work, and she and three other authors reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work.

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

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Evusheld (AstraZeneca), a medication used to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk, has problems: Namely, that supplies of the potentially lifesaving drug outweigh demand.

At least 7 million people who are immunocompromised could benefit from it, as could many others who are undergoing cancer treatment, have received a transplant, or who are allergic to the COVID-19 vaccines. The medication has laboratory-produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and helps the body protect itself. It can slash the chances of becoming infected by 77%, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And it’s free to eligible patients (although there may be an out-of-pocket administrative fee in some cases).

Despite all those lifesaving benefits, fewer than 25% of available doses have been used.

To meet demand, the Biden administration secured 1.7 million doses of the medicine, which was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in December 2021. As of July 25, however, 793,348 doses have been ordered by the administration sites, and only 398,181 doses have been reported as used, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services tells this news organization.

Each week, a certain amount of doses from the 1.7 million dose stockpile is made available to state and territorial health departments. States have not been asking for their full allotment, the spokesperson said July 28.

Now, HHS and AstraZeneca have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of the medication and access to it.

• On July 27, HHS announced that individual providers and smaller sites of care that don’t currently receive Evusheld through the federal distribution process via the HHS Health Partner Order Portal can now order up to three patient courses of the medicine. These can be 
• Health care providers can use the HHS’s COVID-19 Therapeutics Locator to find Evusheld in their area.
• AstraZeneca has launched a new website with educational materials and says it is working closely with patient and professional groups to inform patients and health care providers.
• A direct-to-consumer ad launched on June 22 and will run in the United States online and on TV (Yahoo, Fox, CBS Sports, MSN, ESPN) and be amplified on social and digital channels through year’s end, an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an interview.
• AstraZeneca set up a toll-free number for providers: 1-833-EVUSHLD.

Evusheld includes two monoclonal antibodies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The medication is given as two consecutive intramuscular injections during a single visit to a doctor’s office, infusion center, or other health care facility. The antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevent the virus from getting into human cells and infecting them. It’s authorized for use in children and adults aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 88 pounds.

Studies have found that the medication decreases the risk of getting COVID-19 for up to 6 months after it is given. The FDA recommends repeat dosing every 6 months with the doses of 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody. In clinical trials, Evusheld reduced the incidence of COVID-19 symptomatic illness by 77%, compared with placebo.

Physicians monitor patients for an hour after administering Evusheld for allergic reactions. Other possible side effects include cardiac events, but they are not common.
 

Doctors and patients weigh in

Physicians – and patients – from the United States to the United Kingdom and beyond are questioning why the medication is underused while lauding the recent efforts to expand access and increase awareness.

The U.S. federal government may have underestimated the amount of communication needed to increase awareness of the medication and its applications, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“HHS hasn’t made a major educational effort to promote it,” he said in an interview.

Many physicians who need to know about it, such as transplant doctors and rheumatologists, are outside the typical public health communications loop, he said.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Transational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, has taken to social media to bemoan the lack of awareness.

Another infectious disease expert agrees. “In my experience, the awareness of Evusheld is low amongst many patients as well as many providers,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore.

“Initially, there were scarce supplies of the drug, and certain hospital systems tiered eligibility based on degrees of immunosuppression, and only the most immunosuppressed were proactively approached for treatment.”

“Also, many community hospitals never initially ordered Evusheld – they may have been crowded out by academic centers who treat many more immunosuppressed patients and may not currently see it as a priority,” Dr. Adalja said in an interview. “As such, many immunosuppressed patients would have to seek treatment at academic medical centers, where the drug is more likely to be available.”

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

Evusheld (AstraZeneca), a medication used to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk, has problems: Namely, that supplies of the potentially lifesaving drug outweigh demand.

At least 7 million people who are immunocompromised could benefit from it, as could many others who are undergoing cancer treatment, have received a transplant, or who are allergic to the COVID-19 vaccines. The medication has laboratory-produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and helps the body protect itself. It can slash the chances of becoming infected by 77%, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And it’s free to eligible patients (although there may be an out-of-pocket administrative fee in some cases).

Despite all those lifesaving benefits, fewer than 25% of available doses have been used.

To meet demand, the Biden administration secured 1.7 million doses of the medicine, which was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in December 2021. As of July 25, however, 793,348 doses have been ordered by the administration sites, and only 398,181 doses have been reported as used, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services tells this news organization.

Each week, a certain amount of doses from the 1.7 million dose stockpile is made available to state and territorial health departments. States have not been asking for their full allotment, the spokesperson said July 28.

Now, HHS and AstraZeneca have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of the medication and access to it.

• On July 27, HHS announced that individual providers and smaller sites of care that don’t currently receive Evusheld through the federal distribution process via the HHS Health Partner Order Portal can now order up to three patient courses of the medicine. These can be 
• Health care providers can use the HHS’s COVID-19 Therapeutics Locator to find Evusheld in their area.
• AstraZeneca has launched a new website with educational materials and says it is working closely with patient and professional groups to inform patients and health care providers.
• A direct-to-consumer ad launched on June 22 and will run in the United States online and on TV (Yahoo, Fox, CBS Sports, MSN, ESPN) and be amplified on social and digital channels through year’s end, an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an interview.
• AstraZeneca set up a toll-free number for providers: 1-833-EVUSHLD.

Evusheld includes two monoclonal antibodies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The medication is given as two consecutive intramuscular injections during a single visit to a doctor’s office, infusion center, or other health care facility. The antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevent the virus from getting into human cells and infecting them. It’s authorized for use in children and adults aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 88 pounds.

Studies have found that the medication decreases the risk of getting COVID-19 for up to 6 months after it is given. The FDA recommends repeat dosing every 6 months with the doses of 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody. In clinical trials, Evusheld reduced the incidence of COVID-19 symptomatic illness by 77%, compared with placebo.

Physicians monitor patients for an hour after administering Evusheld for allergic reactions. Other possible side effects include cardiac events, but they are not common.
 

Doctors and patients weigh in

Physicians – and patients – from the United States to the United Kingdom and beyond are questioning why the medication is underused while lauding the recent efforts to expand access and increase awareness.

The U.S. federal government may have underestimated the amount of communication needed to increase awareness of the medication and its applications, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“HHS hasn’t made a major educational effort to promote it,” he said in an interview.

Many physicians who need to know about it, such as transplant doctors and rheumatologists, are outside the typical public health communications loop, he said.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Transational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, has taken to social media to bemoan the lack of awareness.

Another infectious disease expert agrees. “In my experience, the awareness of Evusheld is low amongst many patients as well as many providers,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore.

“Initially, there were scarce supplies of the drug, and certain hospital systems tiered eligibility based on degrees of immunosuppression, and only the most immunosuppressed were proactively approached for treatment.”

“Also, many community hospitals never initially ordered Evusheld – they may have been crowded out by academic centers who treat many more immunosuppressed patients and may not currently see it as a priority,” Dr. Adalja said in an interview. “As such, many immunosuppressed patients would have to seek treatment at academic medical centers, where the drug is more likely to be available.”

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

Evusheld (AstraZeneca), a medication used to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients at high risk, has problems: Namely, that supplies of the potentially lifesaving drug outweigh demand.

At least 7 million people who are immunocompromised could benefit from it, as could many others who are undergoing cancer treatment, have received a transplant, or who are allergic to the COVID-19 vaccines. The medication has laboratory-produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and helps the body protect itself. It can slash the chances of becoming infected by 77%, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

And it’s free to eligible patients (although there may be an out-of-pocket administrative fee in some cases).

Despite all those lifesaving benefits, fewer than 25% of available doses have been used.

To meet demand, the Biden administration secured 1.7 million doses of the medicine, which was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA in December 2021. As of July 25, however, 793,348 doses have been ordered by the administration sites, and only 398,181 doses have been reported as used, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services tells this news organization.

Each week, a certain amount of doses from the 1.7 million dose stockpile is made available to state and territorial health departments. States have not been asking for their full allotment, the spokesperson said July 28.

Now, HHS and AstraZeneca have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of the medication and access to it.

• On July 27, HHS announced that individual providers and smaller sites of care that don’t currently receive Evusheld through the federal distribution process via the HHS Health Partner Order Portal can now order up to three patient courses of the medicine. These can be 
• Health care providers can use the HHS’s COVID-19 Therapeutics Locator to find Evusheld in their area.
• AstraZeneca has launched a new website with educational materials and says it is working closely with patient and professional groups to inform patients and health care providers.
• A direct-to-consumer ad launched on June 22 and will run in the United States online and on TV (Yahoo, Fox, CBS Sports, MSN, ESPN) and be amplified on social and digital channels through year’s end, an AstraZeneca spokesperson said in an interview.
• AstraZeneca set up a toll-free number for providers: 1-833-EVUSHLD.

Evusheld includes two monoclonal antibodies, tixagevimab and cilgavimab. The medication is given as two consecutive intramuscular injections during a single visit to a doctor’s office, infusion center, or other health care facility. The antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and prevent the virus from getting into human cells and infecting them. It’s authorized for use in children and adults aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 88 pounds.

Studies have found that the medication decreases the risk of getting COVID-19 for up to 6 months after it is given. The FDA recommends repeat dosing every 6 months with the doses of 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody. In clinical trials, Evusheld reduced the incidence of COVID-19 symptomatic illness by 77%, compared with placebo.

Physicians monitor patients for an hour after administering Evusheld for allergic reactions. Other possible side effects include cardiac events, but they are not common.
 

Doctors and patients weigh in

Physicians – and patients – from the United States to the United Kingdom and beyond are questioning why the medication is underused while lauding the recent efforts to expand access and increase awareness.

The U.S. federal government may have underestimated the amount of communication needed to increase awareness of the medication and its applications, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.

“HHS hasn’t made a major educational effort to promote it,” he said in an interview.

Many physicians who need to know about it, such as transplant doctors and rheumatologists, are outside the typical public health communications loop, he said.

Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Transational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, has taken to social media to bemoan the lack of awareness.

Another infectious disease expert agrees. “In my experience, the awareness of Evusheld is low amongst many patients as well as many providers,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore.

“Initially, there were scarce supplies of the drug, and certain hospital systems tiered eligibility based on degrees of immunosuppression, and only the most immunosuppressed were proactively approached for treatment.”

“Also, many community hospitals never initially ordered Evusheld – they may have been crowded out by academic centers who treat many more immunosuppressed patients and may not currently see it as a priority,” Dr. Adalja said in an interview. “As such, many immunosuppressed patients would have to seek treatment at academic medical centers, where the drug is more likely to be available.”

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

While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of a wide range of individuals, its adverse effects have been particularly detrimental to adolescents. In this article, I discuss evidence that shows the effects of the pandemic on adolescent patients, potential reasons for this increased distress, and what types of coping mechanisms adolescents have used to counter these effects.

Increases in multiple measures of psychopathology

Multiple online surveys and other studies have documented the pandemic’s impact on younger individuals. In the United States, visits to emergency departments by pediatric patients increased in the months after the first lockdown period.¹ Several studies found increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2,3 In an online survey of 359 children and 3,254 adolescents in China, 22% of respondents reported that they experienced depressive symptoms.³ In an online survey of 1,054 Canadian adolescents, 43% said they were “very concerned” about the pandemic.⁴ In an online survey of 7,353 adolescents in the United States, 37% reported suicidal ideation during the pandemic compared to 17% in 2017.⁵ A Chinese study found that smartphone and internet addiction was significantly associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic.³ In a survey in the Philippines, 16.3% of adolescents reported moderate-to-severe psychological impairment during the pandemic; the rates of COVID-19–related anxiety were higher among girls vs boys.⁶ Alcohol and cannabis use increased among Canadian adolescents during the pandemic, according to an online survey.⁷ Adolescents with anorexia nervosa reported a 70% increase in poor eating habits and more thoughts associated with eating disorders during the pandemic.⁸ A Danish study found that children and adolescents newly diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or who had completed treatment exhibited worsening OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.⁹ An online survey of 6,196 Chinese adolescents found that those with a higher number of pre-pandemic adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and neglect, had elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰

Underlying causes of pandemic-induced distress

Limited social connectedness during the pandemic is a major reason for distress among adolescents. A review of 80 studies found that social isolation and loneliness as a result of social distancing and quarantining were associated with an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-harm.¹¹ Parents’ stress about the risks of COVID-19 was correlated with worsening mental health in their adolescent children.¹² A Chinese study found that the amount of time students spent on smartphones and social media doubled during the pandemic.¹³ In an online survey of 7,890 Chinese adolescents, greater social media, internet, and smartphone use was associated with increased anxiety and depression.¹⁴ This may be in part the result of adolescents spending time reading COVID-related news.

Coping mechanisms to increase well-being

Researchers have identified several positive coping mechanisms adolescents employed during the pandemic. Although some data suggest that increased internet use raises the risk of COVID-related distress, for certain adolescents, using social media to stay connected with friends and relatives was a buffer for feelings of loneliness and might have increased mental well-being.¹⁵ Other common coping mechanisms include relying on faith, volunteering, and starting new hobbies.¹⁶ During the pandemic, there were higher rates of playing outside and increased physical activity, which correlated with positive mental health outcomes.¹⁶ An online survey of 1,040 adolescents found that those who looked to the future optimistically and confidently had a higher health-related quality of life.¹⁷

Continuing an emphasis on adolescent well-being

Although data are limited, adolescents can continue to use these coping mechanisms to maintain their well-being, even if COVID-related restrictions are lifted or reimplemented. During these difficult times, it is imperative for adolescents to get the mental health services they need, and for psychiatric clinicians to continue to find avenues to promote resilience and mental wellness among young patients.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of a wide range of individuals, its adverse effects have been particularly detrimental to adolescents. In this article, I discuss evidence that shows the effects of the pandemic on adolescent patients, potential reasons for this increased distress, and what types of coping mechanisms adolescents have used to counter these effects.

Increases in multiple measures of psychopathology

Multiple online surveys and other studies have documented the pandemic’s impact on younger individuals. In the United States, visits to emergency departments by pediatric patients increased in the months after the first lockdown period.¹ Several studies found increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2,3 In an online survey of 359 children and 3,254 adolescents in China, 22% of respondents reported that they experienced depressive symptoms.³ In an online survey of 1,054 Canadian adolescents, 43% said they were “very concerned” about the pandemic.⁴ In an online survey of 7,353 adolescents in the United States, 37% reported suicidal ideation during the pandemic compared to 17% in 2017.⁵ A Chinese study found that smartphone and internet addiction was significantly associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic.³ In a survey in the Philippines, 16.3% of adolescents reported moderate-to-severe psychological impairment during the pandemic; the rates of COVID-19–related anxiety were higher among girls vs boys.⁶ Alcohol and cannabis use increased among Canadian adolescents during the pandemic, according to an online survey.⁷ Adolescents with anorexia nervosa reported a 70% increase in poor eating habits and more thoughts associated with eating disorders during the pandemic.⁸ A Danish study found that children and adolescents newly diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or who had completed treatment exhibited worsening OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.⁹ An online survey of 6,196 Chinese adolescents found that those with a higher number of pre-pandemic adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and neglect, had elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰

Underlying causes of pandemic-induced distress

Limited social connectedness during the pandemic is a major reason for distress among adolescents. A review of 80 studies found that social isolation and loneliness as a result of social distancing and quarantining were associated with an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-harm.¹¹ Parents’ stress about the risks of COVID-19 was correlated with worsening mental health in their adolescent children.¹² A Chinese study found that the amount of time students spent on smartphones and social media doubled during the pandemic.¹³ In an online survey of 7,890 Chinese adolescents, greater social media, internet, and smartphone use was associated with increased anxiety and depression.¹⁴ This may be in part the result of adolescents spending time reading COVID-related news.

Coping mechanisms to increase well-being

Researchers have identified several positive coping mechanisms adolescents employed during the pandemic. Although some data suggest that increased internet use raises the risk of COVID-related distress, for certain adolescents, using social media to stay connected with friends and relatives was a buffer for feelings of loneliness and might have increased mental well-being.¹⁵ Other common coping mechanisms include relying on faith, volunteering, and starting new hobbies.¹⁶ During the pandemic, there were higher rates of playing outside and increased physical activity, which correlated with positive mental health outcomes.¹⁶ An online survey of 1,040 adolescents found that those who looked to the future optimistically and confidently had a higher health-related quality of life.¹⁷

Continuing an emphasis on adolescent well-being

Although data are limited, adolescents can continue to use these coping mechanisms to maintain their well-being, even if COVID-related restrictions are lifted or reimplemented. During these difficult times, it is imperative for adolescents to get the mental health services they need, and for psychiatric clinicians to continue to find avenues to promote resilience and mental wellness among young patients.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the mental health of a wide range of individuals, its adverse effects have been particularly detrimental to adolescents. In this article, I discuss evidence that shows the effects of the pandemic on adolescent patients, potential reasons for this increased distress, and what types of coping mechanisms adolescents have used to counter these effects.

Increases in multiple measures of psychopathology

Multiple online surveys and other studies have documented the pandemic’s impact on younger individuals. In the United States, visits to emergency departments by pediatric patients increased in the months after the first lockdown period.¹ Several studies found increased rates of anxiety and depression among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.^2,3 In an online survey of 359 children and 3,254 adolescents in China, 22% of respondents reported that they experienced depressive symptoms.³ In an online survey of 1,054 Canadian adolescents, 43% said they were “very concerned” about the pandemic.⁴ In an online survey of 7,353 adolescents in the United States, 37% reported suicidal ideation during the pandemic compared to 17% in 2017.⁵ A Chinese study found that smartphone and internet addiction was significantly associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms during the pandemic.³ In a survey in the Philippines, 16.3% of adolescents reported moderate-to-severe psychological impairment during the pandemic; the rates of COVID-19–related anxiety were higher among girls vs boys.⁶ Alcohol and cannabis use increased among Canadian adolescents during the pandemic, according to an online survey.⁷ Adolescents with anorexia nervosa reported a 70% increase in poor eating habits and more thoughts associated with eating disorders during the pandemic.⁸ A Danish study found that children and adolescents newly diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or who had completed treatment exhibited worsening OCD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.⁹ An online survey of 6,196 Chinese adolescents found that those with a higher number of pre-pandemic adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse and neglect, had elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms and anxiety during the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰

Underlying causes of pandemic-induced distress

Limited social connectedness during the pandemic is a major reason for distress among adolescents. A review of 80 studies found that social isolation and loneliness as a result of social distancing and quarantining were associated with an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-harm.¹¹ Parents’ stress about the risks of COVID-19 was correlated with worsening mental health in their adolescent children.¹² A Chinese study found that the amount of time students spent on smartphones and social media doubled during the pandemic.¹³ In an online survey of 7,890 Chinese adolescents, greater social media, internet, and smartphone use was associated with increased anxiety and depression.¹⁴ This may be in part the result of adolescents spending time reading COVID-related news.

Coping mechanisms to increase well-being

Researchers have identified several positive coping mechanisms adolescents employed during the pandemic. Although some data suggest that increased internet use raises the risk of COVID-related distress, for certain adolescents, using social media to stay connected with friends and relatives was a buffer for feelings of loneliness and might have increased mental well-being.¹⁵ Other common coping mechanisms include relying on faith, volunteering, and starting new hobbies.¹⁶ During the pandemic, there were higher rates of playing outside and increased physical activity, which correlated with positive mental health outcomes.¹⁶ An online survey of 1,040 adolescents found that those who looked to the future optimistically and confidently had a higher health-related quality of life.¹⁷

Continuing an emphasis on adolescent well-being

Although data are limited, adolescents can continue to use these coping mechanisms to maintain their well-being, even if COVID-related restrictions are lifted or reimplemented. During these difficult times, it is imperative for adolescents to get the mental health services they need, and for psychiatric clinicians to continue to find avenues to promote resilience and mental wellness among young patients.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and persists more than 2 years on and, once again, Blacks and African Americans have been disproportionately affected, an analysis of death certificates shows.

The findings “suggest that the pandemic may reverse years or decades of work aimed at reducing gaps in cardiovascular outcomes,” Sadeer G. Al-Kindi, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

Although the disparities are in line with previous research, he said, “what was surprising is the persistence of excess cardiovascular mortality approximately 2 years after the pandemic started, even during a period of low COVID-19 mortality.”

“This suggests that the pandemic resulted in a disruption of health care access and, along with disparities in COVID-19 infection and its complications, he said, “may have a long-lasting effect on health care disparities, especially among vulnerable populations.”

The study was published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with lead author Scott E. Janus, MD, also of Case Western Reserve University.
 

Impact consistently greater for Blacks

Dr. Al-Kindi and colleagues used 3,598,352 U.S. death files to investigate trends in deaths caused specifically by CVD as well as its subtypes myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure (HF) in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Baseline demographics showed a higher percentage of older, female, and Black individuals among the CVD subtypes of interest.

Overall, there was an excess CVD mortality of 6.7% during the pandemic, compared with prepandemic years, including a 2.5% rise in MI deaths and an 8.5% rise in stroke deaths. HF mortality remained relatively steady, rising only 0.1%.

Subgroup analyses revealed “striking differences” in excess mortality between Blacks and Whites, the authors noted. Blacks had an overall excess mortality of 13.8% versus 5.1% for Whites, compared with the prepandemic years. The differences were consistent across subtypes: MI (9.6% vs. 1.0%); stroke (14.5% vs. 6.9%); and HF (5.1% vs. –1.2%; P value for all < .001).

When the investigators looked at deaths on a yearly basis with 2018 as the baseline, they found CVD deaths increased by 1.5% in 2019, 15.8% in 2020, and 13.5% in 2021 among Black Americans, compared with 0.5%, 5.1%, and 5.7%, respectively, among White Americans.

Excess deaths from MI rose by 9.5% in 2020 and by 6.7% in 2021 among Blacks but fell by 1.2% in 2020 and by 1.0% in 2021 among Whites.

Disparities in excess HF mortality were similar, rising 9.1% and 4.1% in 2020 and 2021 among Blacks, while dipping 0.1% and 0.8% in 2020 and 2021 among Whites.

The “most striking difference” was in excess stroke mortality, which doubled among Blacks compared with whites in 2020 (14.9% vs. 6.7%) and in 2021 (17.5% vs. 8.1%), according to the authors.
 

Awareness urged

Although the disparities were expected, “there is clear value in documenting and quantifying the magnitude of these disparities,” Amil M. Shah, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

In addition to being observational, the main limitation of the study, he noted, is the quality and resolution of the death certificate data, which may limit the accuracy of the cause of death ascertainment and classification of race or ethnicity. “However, I think these potential inaccuracies are unlikely to materially impact the overall study findings.”

Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, said he would like to see additional research into the diversity and heterogeneity in risk among Black communities. “Understanding the environmental, social, and health care factors – both harmful and protective – that influence risk for CVD morbidity and mortality among Black individuals and communities offers the promise to provide actionable insights to mitigate these disparities.”

“Intervention studies testing approaches to mitigate disparities based on race/ethnicity” are also needed, he added. These may be at the policy, community, health system, or individual level, and community involvement in phases will be essential.”

Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah urged clinicians to be aware of the disparities and the need to improve access to care and address social determinants of health in vulnerable populations.

These disparities “are driven by structural factors, and are reinforced by individual behaviors. In this context, implicit bias training is important to help clinicians recognize and mitigate bias in their own practice,” Dr. Shah said. “Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and advocating for anti-racist policies and practices in their health systems” can also help.

Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and persists more than 2 years on and, once again, Blacks and African Americans have been disproportionately affected, an analysis of death certificates shows.

The findings “suggest that the pandemic may reverse years or decades of work aimed at reducing gaps in cardiovascular outcomes,” Sadeer G. Al-Kindi, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

Although the disparities are in line with previous research, he said, “what was surprising is the persistence of excess cardiovascular mortality approximately 2 years after the pandemic started, even during a period of low COVID-19 mortality.”

“This suggests that the pandemic resulted in a disruption of health care access and, along with disparities in COVID-19 infection and its complications, he said, “may have a long-lasting effect on health care disparities, especially among vulnerable populations.”

The study was published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with lead author Scott E. Janus, MD, also of Case Western Reserve University.
 

Impact consistently greater for Blacks

Dr. Al-Kindi and colleagues used 3,598,352 U.S. death files to investigate trends in deaths caused specifically by CVD as well as its subtypes myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure (HF) in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Baseline demographics showed a higher percentage of older, female, and Black individuals among the CVD subtypes of interest.

Overall, there was an excess CVD mortality of 6.7% during the pandemic, compared with prepandemic years, including a 2.5% rise in MI deaths and an 8.5% rise in stroke deaths. HF mortality remained relatively steady, rising only 0.1%.

Subgroup analyses revealed “striking differences” in excess mortality between Blacks and Whites, the authors noted. Blacks had an overall excess mortality of 13.8% versus 5.1% for Whites, compared with the prepandemic years. The differences were consistent across subtypes: MI (9.6% vs. 1.0%); stroke (14.5% vs. 6.9%); and HF (5.1% vs. –1.2%; P value for all < .001).

When the investigators looked at deaths on a yearly basis with 2018 as the baseline, they found CVD deaths increased by 1.5% in 2019, 15.8% in 2020, and 13.5% in 2021 among Black Americans, compared with 0.5%, 5.1%, and 5.7%, respectively, among White Americans.

Excess deaths from MI rose by 9.5% in 2020 and by 6.7% in 2021 among Blacks but fell by 1.2% in 2020 and by 1.0% in 2021 among Whites.

Disparities in excess HF mortality were similar, rising 9.1% and 4.1% in 2020 and 2021 among Blacks, while dipping 0.1% and 0.8% in 2020 and 2021 among Whites.

The “most striking difference” was in excess stroke mortality, which doubled among Blacks compared with whites in 2020 (14.9% vs. 6.7%) and in 2021 (17.5% vs. 8.1%), according to the authors.
 

Awareness urged

Although the disparities were expected, “there is clear value in documenting and quantifying the magnitude of these disparities,” Amil M. Shah, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

In addition to being observational, the main limitation of the study, he noted, is the quality and resolution of the death certificate data, which may limit the accuracy of the cause of death ascertainment and classification of race or ethnicity. “However, I think these potential inaccuracies are unlikely to materially impact the overall study findings.”

Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, said he would like to see additional research into the diversity and heterogeneity in risk among Black communities. “Understanding the environmental, social, and health care factors – both harmful and protective – that influence risk for CVD morbidity and mortality among Black individuals and communities offers the promise to provide actionable insights to mitigate these disparities.”

“Intervention studies testing approaches to mitigate disparities based on race/ethnicity” are also needed, he added. These may be at the policy, community, health system, or individual level, and community involvement in phases will be essential.”

Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah urged clinicians to be aware of the disparities and the need to improve access to care and address social determinants of health in vulnerable populations.

These disparities “are driven by structural factors, and are reinforced by individual behaviors. In this context, implicit bias training is important to help clinicians recognize and mitigate bias in their own practice,” Dr. Shah said. “Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and advocating for anti-racist policies and practices in their health systems” can also help.

Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic and persists more than 2 years on and, once again, Blacks and African Americans have been disproportionately affected, an analysis of death certificates shows.

The findings “suggest that the pandemic may reverse years or decades of work aimed at reducing gaps in cardiovascular outcomes,” Sadeer G. Al-Kindi, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

Although the disparities are in line with previous research, he said, “what was surprising is the persistence of excess cardiovascular mortality approximately 2 years after the pandemic started, even during a period of low COVID-19 mortality.”

“This suggests that the pandemic resulted in a disruption of health care access and, along with disparities in COVID-19 infection and its complications, he said, “may have a long-lasting effect on health care disparities, especially among vulnerable populations.”

The study was published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings with lead author Scott E. Janus, MD, also of Case Western Reserve University.
 

Impact consistently greater for Blacks

Dr. Al-Kindi and colleagues used 3,598,352 U.S. death files to investigate trends in deaths caused specifically by CVD as well as its subtypes myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure (HF) in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Baseline demographics showed a higher percentage of older, female, and Black individuals among the CVD subtypes of interest.

Overall, there was an excess CVD mortality of 6.7% during the pandemic, compared with prepandemic years, including a 2.5% rise in MI deaths and an 8.5% rise in stroke deaths. HF mortality remained relatively steady, rising only 0.1%.

Subgroup analyses revealed “striking differences” in excess mortality between Blacks and Whites, the authors noted. Blacks had an overall excess mortality of 13.8% versus 5.1% for Whites, compared with the prepandemic years. The differences were consistent across subtypes: MI (9.6% vs. 1.0%); stroke (14.5% vs. 6.9%); and HF (5.1% vs. –1.2%; P value for all < .001).

When the investigators looked at deaths on a yearly basis with 2018 as the baseline, they found CVD deaths increased by 1.5% in 2019, 15.8% in 2020, and 13.5% in 2021 among Black Americans, compared with 0.5%, 5.1%, and 5.7%, respectively, among White Americans.

Excess deaths from MI rose by 9.5% in 2020 and by 6.7% in 2021 among Blacks but fell by 1.2% in 2020 and by 1.0% in 2021 among Whites.

Disparities in excess HF mortality were similar, rising 9.1% and 4.1% in 2020 and 2021 among Blacks, while dipping 0.1% and 0.8% in 2020 and 2021 among Whites.

The “most striking difference” was in excess stroke mortality, which doubled among Blacks compared with whites in 2020 (14.9% vs. 6.7%) and in 2021 (17.5% vs. 8.1%), according to the authors.
 

Awareness urged

Although the disparities were expected, “there is clear value in documenting and quantifying the magnitude of these disparities,” Amil M. Shah, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

In addition to being observational, the main limitation of the study, he noted, is the quality and resolution of the death certificate data, which may limit the accuracy of the cause of death ascertainment and classification of race or ethnicity. “However, I think these potential inaccuracies are unlikely to materially impact the overall study findings.”

Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, said he would like to see additional research into the diversity and heterogeneity in risk among Black communities. “Understanding the environmental, social, and health care factors – both harmful and protective – that influence risk for CVD morbidity and mortality among Black individuals and communities offers the promise to provide actionable insights to mitigate these disparities.”

“Intervention studies testing approaches to mitigate disparities based on race/ethnicity” are also needed, he added. These may be at the policy, community, health system, or individual level, and community involvement in phases will be essential.”

Meanwhile, both Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah urged clinicians to be aware of the disparities and the need to improve access to care and address social determinants of health in vulnerable populations.

These disparities “are driven by structural factors, and are reinforced by individual behaviors. In this context, implicit bias training is important to help clinicians recognize and mitigate bias in their own practice,” Dr. Shah said. “Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and advocating for anti-racist policies and practices in their health systems” can also help.

Dr. Al-Kindi and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many scientists and public health experts have long said the coronavirus that has caused a global pandemic originated in a marketplace in Wuhan, China. Now, two new studies strengthen that argument.

The original spread of the virus was a one-two punch, the studies found. Twice, the virus jumped from animals to humans. Virus genetics and outbreak modeling in one study revealed two strains released a few weeks apart in November and December 2019.

“Now I realize it sounds like I just said that a once-in-a-generation event happened twice in short succession, and pandemics are indeed rare,” Joel O. Wertheim, PhD, said at a briefing sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

A unique storm of factors had to be present for the outbreak to blow up into a pandemic: Animals carrying a virus that could spread to humans, close human contact with these animals, and a city large enough for the infection to take off before it could be contained are examples.

Unluckily for us humans, this coronavirus – SARS-CoV-2 – is a “generalist virus” capable of infecting many animals, including humans.

“Once all the conditions are in place ... the barriers to spillover have been lowered,” said Dr. Wertheim, a researcher in genetic and molecular networks at the University of California, San Diego. In fact, beyond the two strains of the virus that took hold, there were likely up to two dozen more times where people got the virus but did not spread it far and wide, and it died out.

Overall, the odds were against the virus – 78% of the time, the “introduction” to humans was likely to go extinct, the study showed.

The research revealed the COVID-19 pandemic started small.

“Our model shows that there were likely only a few dozen infections, and only several hospitalizations due to COVID-19, by early December,” said Jonathan Pekar, a graduate student working with Dr. Wertheim.

In Wuhan in late 2019, Mr. Pekar said, there was not a single positive coronavirus sample from thousands of samples from healthy blood donors tested between September and December. Likewise, not one blood sample from patients hospitalized with flu-like illness from October to December 2019 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

Mapping the outbreak

A second study published in the journal Science mapped out the earliest COVID-19 cases. This effort showed a tight cluster around the wholesale seafood market inside Wuhan, a city of 11 million residents.

When researchers tried other scenarios – modeling outbreaks in other parts of the city – the pattern did not hold. Again, the Wuhan market appeared to be ground zero for the start of the pandemic.

Michael Worobey, PhD, and colleagues used data from Chinese scientists and the World Health Organization for the study.

“There was this extraordinary pattern where the highest density of cases was both extremely near to and very centered on this market,” said Dr. Worobey, head of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The highest density of cases, in a city of 8,000 square kilometers, was a “very, very small area of about a third of a kilometer square,” he said.

The outbreak pattern showed the Wuhan market “smack dab in the middle.”

So if it started with infected workers at the market, how did it spread from there? It’s likely the virus got into the community as the vendors at the market went to local shops, infecting people in those stores. Then local community members not linked to the market started getting the virus, Dr. Worobey said.

The investigators also identified which stalls in the market were most likely involved, a sort of internal clustering. “That clustering is very, very specifically in the parts of the market where ... they were selling wildlife, including, for example, raccoon dogs and other animals that we know are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2,” said Kristian Andersen, PhD, director of infectious disease genomics at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

What remains unknown is which animal or animals carried the virus, although the raccoon dog – an animal similar to a fox that is native to parts of Asia – remains central to most theories. In addition, many of the farms supplying animals to the market have since been closed, making it challenging for researchers to figure out exactly where infected animals came from.

“We don’t know necessarily, but raccoon dogs were sold at this market all the way up to the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Andersen said.
 

Not ruling out other theories

People who believe SARS-CoV-2 was released from a laboratory in China at first included Dr. Worobey himself. “I’ve in the past been much more open to the lab leak idea,” he said. “And published that in a letter in Science” in November 2021.

The letter was “much more influential than I thought it would be in ways that I think it turned out to be quite damaging,” he said. As more evidence emerged since then, Dr. Worobey said he came around to the Wuhan market source theory.

Dr. Andersen agreed he was more open to the lab-leak theory at first. “I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer,” he said. Newer evidence convinced him “that actually, the data points to this particular market.”

“Have we disproved the lab-leak theory? No,” Dr. Anderson said. “Will we ever be able to? No.” But the Wuhan market origin scenario is more plausible. “I would say these two papers combined present the strongest evidence of that to date.”

Identifying the source of the outbreak that led to the COVID-19 pandemic is based in science, Dr. Andersen said. “What we’re trying to understand is the origin of the pandemic. We’re not trying to place blame.”
 

Future directions

“With pandemics being pandemics, they affect all of us,” Dr. Andersen said. “We can’t prevent these kinds of events that led to the COVID-19 pandemic. But what we can hope to do is to prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics.”

Rapid reporting of data and cooperation are needed going forward, Dr. Andersen said. Very strong surveillance systems, including wastewater surveillance, could help monitor for SARS-CoV-2, and other pathogens of potential concern in the future as well.

It should be standard practice for medical professionals to be on alert for unusual respiratory infections too, the researchers said.

“It’s a bloody lucky thing that the doctors at the Shinwa hospital were so on the ball, that they noticed that these cases were something unusual at the end of December,” Dr. Worobey said. “It didn’t have to work out that way.”

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

Many scientists and public health experts have long said the coronavirus that has caused a global pandemic originated in a marketplace in Wuhan, China. Now, two new studies strengthen that argument.

The original spread of the virus was a one-two punch, the studies found. Twice, the virus jumped from animals to humans. Virus genetics and outbreak modeling in one study revealed two strains released a few weeks apart in November and December 2019.

“Now I realize it sounds like I just said that a once-in-a-generation event happened twice in short succession, and pandemics are indeed rare,” Joel O. Wertheim, PhD, said at a briefing sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

A unique storm of factors had to be present for the outbreak to blow up into a pandemic: Animals carrying a virus that could spread to humans, close human contact with these animals, and a city large enough for the infection to take off before it could be contained are examples.

Unluckily for us humans, this coronavirus – SARS-CoV-2 – is a “generalist virus” capable of infecting many animals, including humans.

“Once all the conditions are in place ... the barriers to spillover have been lowered,” said Dr. Wertheim, a researcher in genetic and molecular networks at the University of California, San Diego. In fact, beyond the two strains of the virus that took hold, there were likely up to two dozen more times where people got the virus but did not spread it far and wide, and it died out.

Overall, the odds were against the virus – 78% of the time, the “introduction” to humans was likely to go extinct, the study showed.

The research revealed the COVID-19 pandemic started small.

“Our model shows that there were likely only a few dozen infections, and only several hospitalizations due to COVID-19, by early December,” said Jonathan Pekar, a graduate student working with Dr. Wertheim.

In Wuhan in late 2019, Mr. Pekar said, there was not a single positive coronavirus sample from thousands of samples from healthy blood donors tested between September and December. Likewise, not one blood sample from patients hospitalized with flu-like illness from October to December 2019 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

Mapping the outbreak

A second study published in the journal Science mapped out the earliest COVID-19 cases. This effort showed a tight cluster around the wholesale seafood market inside Wuhan, a city of 11 million residents.

When researchers tried other scenarios – modeling outbreaks in other parts of the city – the pattern did not hold. Again, the Wuhan market appeared to be ground zero for the start of the pandemic.

Michael Worobey, PhD, and colleagues used data from Chinese scientists and the World Health Organization for the study.

“There was this extraordinary pattern where the highest density of cases was both extremely near to and very centered on this market,” said Dr. Worobey, head of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The highest density of cases, in a city of 8,000 square kilometers, was a “very, very small area of about a third of a kilometer square,” he said.

The outbreak pattern showed the Wuhan market “smack dab in the middle.”

So if it started with infected workers at the market, how did it spread from there? It’s likely the virus got into the community as the vendors at the market went to local shops, infecting people in those stores. Then local community members not linked to the market started getting the virus, Dr. Worobey said.

The investigators also identified which stalls in the market were most likely involved, a sort of internal clustering. “That clustering is very, very specifically in the parts of the market where ... they were selling wildlife, including, for example, raccoon dogs and other animals that we know are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2,” said Kristian Andersen, PhD, director of infectious disease genomics at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

What remains unknown is which animal or animals carried the virus, although the raccoon dog – an animal similar to a fox that is native to parts of Asia – remains central to most theories. In addition, many of the farms supplying animals to the market have since been closed, making it challenging for researchers to figure out exactly where infected animals came from.

“We don’t know necessarily, but raccoon dogs were sold at this market all the way up to the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Andersen said.
 

Not ruling out other theories

People who believe SARS-CoV-2 was released from a laboratory in China at first included Dr. Worobey himself. “I’ve in the past been much more open to the lab leak idea,” he said. “And published that in a letter in Science” in November 2021.

The letter was “much more influential than I thought it would be in ways that I think it turned out to be quite damaging,” he said. As more evidence emerged since then, Dr. Worobey said he came around to the Wuhan market source theory.

Dr. Andersen agreed he was more open to the lab-leak theory at first. “I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer,” he said. Newer evidence convinced him “that actually, the data points to this particular market.”

“Have we disproved the lab-leak theory? No,” Dr. Anderson said. “Will we ever be able to? No.” But the Wuhan market origin scenario is more plausible. “I would say these two papers combined present the strongest evidence of that to date.”

Identifying the source of the outbreak that led to the COVID-19 pandemic is based in science, Dr. Andersen said. “What we’re trying to understand is the origin of the pandemic. We’re not trying to place blame.”
 

Future directions

“With pandemics being pandemics, they affect all of us,” Dr. Andersen said. “We can’t prevent these kinds of events that led to the COVID-19 pandemic. But what we can hope to do is to prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics.”

Rapid reporting of data and cooperation are needed going forward, Dr. Andersen said. Very strong surveillance systems, including wastewater surveillance, could help monitor for SARS-CoV-2, and other pathogens of potential concern in the future as well.

It should be standard practice for medical professionals to be on alert for unusual respiratory infections too, the researchers said.

“It’s a bloody lucky thing that the doctors at the Shinwa hospital were so on the ball, that they noticed that these cases were something unusual at the end of December,” Dr. Worobey said. “It didn’t have to work out that way.”

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

Many scientists and public health experts have long said the coronavirus that has caused a global pandemic originated in a marketplace in Wuhan, China. Now, two new studies strengthen that argument.

The original spread of the virus was a one-two punch, the studies found. Twice, the virus jumped from animals to humans. Virus genetics and outbreak modeling in one study revealed two strains released a few weeks apart in November and December 2019.

“Now I realize it sounds like I just said that a once-in-a-generation event happened twice in short succession, and pandemics are indeed rare,” Joel O. Wertheim, PhD, said at a briefing sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

A unique storm of factors had to be present for the outbreak to blow up into a pandemic: Animals carrying a virus that could spread to humans, close human contact with these animals, and a city large enough for the infection to take off before it could be contained are examples.

Unluckily for us humans, this coronavirus – SARS-CoV-2 – is a “generalist virus” capable of infecting many animals, including humans.

“Once all the conditions are in place ... the barriers to spillover have been lowered,” said Dr. Wertheim, a researcher in genetic and molecular networks at the University of California, San Diego. In fact, beyond the two strains of the virus that took hold, there were likely up to two dozen more times where people got the virus but did not spread it far and wide, and it died out.

Overall, the odds were against the virus – 78% of the time, the “introduction” to humans was likely to go extinct, the study showed.

The research revealed the COVID-19 pandemic started small.

“Our model shows that there were likely only a few dozen infections, and only several hospitalizations due to COVID-19, by early December,” said Jonathan Pekar, a graduate student working with Dr. Wertheim.

In Wuhan in late 2019, Mr. Pekar said, there was not a single positive coronavirus sample from thousands of samples from healthy blood donors tested between September and December. Likewise, not one blood sample from patients hospitalized with flu-like illness from October to December 2019 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

Mapping the outbreak

A second study published in the journal Science mapped out the earliest COVID-19 cases. This effort showed a tight cluster around the wholesale seafood market inside Wuhan, a city of 11 million residents.

When researchers tried other scenarios – modeling outbreaks in other parts of the city – the pattern did not hold. Again, the Wuhan market appeared to be ground zero for the start of the pandemic.

Michael Worobey, PhD, and colleagues used data from Chinese scientists and the World Health Organization for the study.

“There was this extraordinary pattern where the highest density of cases was both extremely near to and very centered on this market,” said Dr. Worobey, head of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The highest density of cases, in a city of 8,000 square kilometers, was a “very, very small area of about a third of a kilometer square,” he said.

The outbreak pattern showed the Wuhan market “smack dab in the middle.”

So if it started with infected workers at the market, how did it spread from there? It’s likely the virus got into the community as the vendors at the market went to local shops, infecting people in those stores. Then local community members not linked to the market started getting the virus, Dr. Worobey said.

The investigators also identified which stalls in the market were most likely involved, a sort of internal clustering. “That clustering is very, very specifically in the parts of the market where ... they were selling wildlife, including, for example, raccoon dogs and other animals that we know are susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2,” said Kristian Andersen, PhD, director of infectious disease genomics at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

What remains unknown is which animal or animals carried the virus, although the raccoon dog – an animal similar to a fox that is native to parts of Asia – remains central to most theories. In addition, many of the farms supplying animals to the market have since been closed, making it challenging for researchers to figure out exactly where infected animals came from.

“We don’t know necessarily, but raccoon dogs were sold at this market all the way up to the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. Andersen said.
 

Not ruling out other theories

People who believe SARS-CoV-2 was released from a laboratory in China at first included Dr. Worobey himself. “I’ve in the past been much more open to the lab leak idea,” he said. “And published that in a letter in Science” in November 2021.

The letter was “much more influential than I thought it would be in ways that I think it turned out to be quite damaging,” he said. As more evidence emerged since then, Dr. Worobey said he came around to the Wuhan market source theory.

Dr. Andersen agreed he was more open to the lab-leak theory at first. “I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer,” he said. Newer evidence convinced him “that actually, the data points to this particular market.”

“Have we disproved the lab-leak theory? No,” Dr. Anderson said. “Will we ever be able to? No.” But the Wuhan market origin scenario is more plausible. “I would say these two papers combined present the strongest evidence of that to date.”

Identifying the source of the outbreak that led to the COVID-19 pandemic is based in science, Dr. Andersen said. “What we’re trying to understand is the origin of the pandemic. We’re not trying to place blame.”
 

Future directions

“With pandemics being pandemics, they affect all of us,” Dr. Andersen said. “We can’t prevent these kinds of events that led to the COVID-19 pandemic. But what we can hope to do is to prevent outbreaks from becoming pandemics.”

Rapid reporting of data and cooperation are needed going forward, Dr. Andersen said. Very strong surveillance systems, including wastewater surveillance, could help monitor for SARS-CoV-2, and other pathogens of potential concern in the future as well.

It should be standard practice for medical professionals to be on alert for unusual respiratory infections too, the researchers said.

“It’s a bloody lucky thing that the doctors at the Shinwa hospital were so on the ball, that they noticed that these cases were something unusual at the end of December,” Dr. Worobey said. “It didn’t have to work out that way.”

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

Psittacosis, a rare disease, has been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because the symptoms of the disease are similar to COVID-19 symptoms, researchers suggest on the basis of data from 32 individuals.

Diagnosis of and screening for COVID-19 continues to increase; however, cases of atypical pneumonia caused by uncommon pathogens, which presents with similar symptoms, may be missed, wrote Qiaoqiao Yin, MS, of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues.

“The clinical manifestations of human psittacosis can present as rapidly progressing severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and multiple organ failure,” but human cases have not been well studied, they say.

In a study  published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 32 adults diagnosed with Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and June 2021 in China. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 20 were men, and 20 had underlying diseases.

A total of 17 patients presented with fever, cough, and expectoration of yellow-white sputum. At the time of hospital admission, three patients had myalgia, two had headache, and two had hypertension. The patients were originally suspected of having COVID-19.

“All patients showed atypical pneumonia, including inflammatory infiltration, pleural effusion, multiple inflammatory exudative lesions with interstitial edema, lung abscesses, and white lung,” all of which could be observed in COVID-19 patients as well, the researchers wrote.

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were used to rule out COVID-19. The researchers then used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify the disease-causing pathogens. They collected 18 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples, 9 peripheral blood samples, and 5 sputum samples. The mNGS identified C. psittaci as the suspected pathogen within 48 hours. Suspected C. psittaci infections were confirmed by endpoint PCR for the BALF and sputum samples and six of nine blood samples, “indicating a lower sensitivity of PCR compared to mNGS for blood samples,” the researchers say. No other potential pathogens were identified.

Psittacosis is common in birds but is rare in humans. C. psittaci is responsible for 1%-8% of cases involving community-acquired pneumonia in China, the researchers note. Although poultry is a source of infection, 25 of the patients in the study did not report a history of exposure to poultry or pigeons at the time of their initial hospital admission. Many patients may be unaware of exposures to poultry, which further complicates the C. psittaci diagnosis, they note.

All patients were treated with doxycycline-based regimens and showed improvement.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a definitive diagnostic tool for C. psittaci and the lack of convalescent serum samples to confirm cases, the researchers note. In addition, molecular detections for PCR are unavailable in most hospitals in China, they say. The results represent the largest known collection of suspected C. psittaci pneumonia cases and highlight the need for clinician vigilance and awareness of this rare condition, especially in light of the potential for misdiagnosis during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psittacosis, a rare disease, has been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because the symptoms of the disease are similar to COVID-19 symptoms, researchers suggest on the basis of data from 32 individuals.

Diagnosis of and screening for COVID-19 continues to increase; however, cases of atypical pneumonia caused by uncommon pathogens, which presents with similar symptoms, may be missed, wrote Qiaoqiao Yin, MS, of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues.

“The clinical manifestations of human psittacosis can present as rapidly progressing severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and multiple organ failure,” but human cases have not been well studied, they say.

In a study  published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 32 adults diagnosed with Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and June 2021 in China. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 20 were men, and 20 had underlying diseases.

A total of 17 patients presented with fever, cough, and expectoration of yellow-white sputum. At the time of hospital admission, three patients had myalgia, two had headache, and two had hypertension. The patients were originally suspected of having COVID-19.

“All patients showed atypical pneumonia, including inflammatory infiltration, pleural effusion, multiple inflammatory exudative lesions with interstitial edema, lung abscesses, and white lung,” all of which could be observed in COVID-19 patients as well, the researchers wrote.

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were used to rule out COVID-19. The researchers then used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify the disease-causing pathogens. They collected 18 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples, 9 peripheral blood samples, and 5 sputum samples. The mNGS identified C. psittaci as the suspected pathogen within 48 hours. Suspected C. psittaci infections were confirmed by endpoint PCR for the BALF and sputum samples and six of nine blood samples, “indicating a lower sensitivity of PCR compared to mNGS for blood samples,” the researchers say. No other potential pathogens were identified.

Psittacosis is common in birds but is rare in humans. C. psittaci is responsible for 1%-8% of cases involving community-acquired pneumonia in China, the researchers note. Although poultry is a source of infection, 25 of the patients in the study did not report a history of exposure to poultry or pigeons at the time of their initial hospital admission. Many patients may be unaware of exposures to poultry, which further complicates the C. psittaci diagnosis, they note.

All patients were treated with doxycycline-based regimens and showed improvement.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a definitive diagnostic tool for C. psittaci and the lack of convalescent serum samples to confirm cases, the researchers note. In addition, molecular detections for PCR are unavailable in most hospitals in China, they say. The results represent the largest known collection of suspected C. psittaci pneumonia cases and highlight the need for clinician vigilance and awareness of this rare condition, especially in light of the potential for misdiagnosis during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psittacosis, a rare disease, has been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because the symptoms of the disease are similar to COVID-19 symptoms, researchers suggest on the basis of data from 32 individuals.

Diagnosis of and screening for COVID-19 continues to increase; however, cases of atypical pneumonia caused by uncommon pathogens, which presents with similar symptoms, may be missed, wrote Qiaoqiao Yin, MS, of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues.

“The clinical manifestations of human psittacosis can present as rapidly progressing severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and multiple organ failure,” but human cases have not been well studied, they say.

In a study  published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 32 adults diagnosed with Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and June 2021 in China. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 20 were men, and 20 had underlying diseases.

A total of 17 patients presented with fever, cough, and expectoration of yellow-white sputum. At the time of hospital admission, three patients had myalgia, two had headache, and two had hypertension. The patients were originally suspected of having COVID-19.

“All patients showed atypical pneumonia, including inflammatory infiltration, pleural effusion, multiple inflammatory exudative lesions with interstitial edema, lung abscesses, and white lung,” all of which could be observed in COVID-19 patients as well, the researchers wrote.

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were used to rule out COVID-19. The researchers then used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify the disease-causing pathogens. They collected 18 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples, 9 peripheral blood samples, and 5 sputum samples. The mNGS identified C. psittaci as the suspected pathogen within 48 hours. Suspected C. psittaci infections were confirmed by endpoint PCR for the BALF and sputum samples and six of nine blood samples, “indicating a lower sensitivity of PCR compared to mNGS for blood samples,” the researchers say. No other potential pathogens were identified.

Psittacosis is common in birds but is rare in humans. C. psittaci is responsible for 1%-8% of cases involving community-acquired pneumonia in China, the researchers note. Although poultry is a source of infection, 25 of the patients in the study did not report a history of exposure to poultry or pigeons at the time of their initial hospital admission. Many patients may be unaware of exposures to poultry, which further complicates the C. psittaci diagnosis, they note.

All patients were treated with doxycycline-based regimens and showed improvement.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a definitive diagnostic tool for C. psittaci and the lack of convalescent serum samples to confirm cases, the researchers note. In addition, molecular detections for PCR are unavailable in most hospitals in China, they say. The results represent the largest known collection of suspected C. psittaci pneumonia cases and highlight the need for clinician vigilance and awareness of this rare condition, especially in light of the potential for misdiagnosis during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

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

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

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

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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