Pulmonology

Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.

Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.

However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.

In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The primary outcome was the time from the date of a diagnosis or first treatment of a severe physical health condition to a death by suicide. The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.

The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.

The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.

For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.

The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.

The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.

The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.

The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.

However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.

The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.

Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.

However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.

In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The primary outcome was the time from the date of a diagnosis or first treatment of a severe physical health condition to a death by suicide. The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.

The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.

The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.

For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.

The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.

The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.

The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.

The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.

However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.

The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.

Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.

However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.

In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The primary outcome was the time from the date of a diagnosis or first treatment of a severe physical health condition to a death by suicide. The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.

The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.

The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.

For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.

The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.

The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.

The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.

The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.

However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.

The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are more likely to die within a year of undergoing elective surgery and to incur higher health care costs than are similar patients without COPD, data suggest.

An analysis of close to a million patient records found that, after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, procedure type, and comorbidities, patients with COPD were 26% more likely to die in the year after surgery than were those without COPD. Moreover, COPD was associated with a 4.6% increase in health care costs.

Previous studies have evaluated outcomes for the first 30 days after surgery. Those data “may not adequately capture the overall burden of surgery and how long it may take patients to recover,” study author Ashwin Sankar, MD, a clinician-investigator at St. Michael’s Hospital and assistant professor of anesthesia at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We found that COPD often coexists with other conditions, like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and frailty,” Dr. Sankar added. “We would suggest that clinicians use COPD as a flag for other conditions to ensure that all modifiable risk factors are optimized prior to surgery.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Additional recovery support

The authors analyzed data from 932,616 patients who underwent intermediate-risk to high-risk elective noncardiac surgeries from 2005 to 2019 in Ontario. Procedures included carotid endarterectomy, open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, peripheral arterial bypass, total hip replacement, total knee replacement, shoulder surgery, large-bowel surgery, partial liver resection, pancreaticoduodenectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and hysterectomy.

The researchers quantified the associations of COPD with survival and costs. Their analyses included partial adjustment for sociodemographic factors and procedure type and full adjustment, which included comorbidities.

The primary outcome was all-cause death in the year after surgery; the secondary outcome was total health care costs in that year.

The mean age of the population was 65 years, and 60% of patients were women. A total of 170,482 (18%) patients had COPD. Compared with those without COPD, the patients with COPD were older and were more likely to be male, to be in a lower income quintile, to be residents of long-term care facilities, and to have been admitted to the hospital before surgery. They were also more likely to have comorbidities, including coronary artery disease, heart failure, and lung cancer.

A larger proportion of patients with COPD had frailty and medium to high comorbidity. They also more frequently underwent orthopedic, open upper abdominal, and vascular surgery.

During the year after surgery, 52,021 (5.6%) patients died, including 18,007 (10.6%) with COPD and 34,014 (4.5%) without. Those with COPD were more likely to die within 30 days of surgery (3.4% vs 1.2%).

For patients with COPD, the partially adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 1.61 for risk of death; the fully adjusted HR was 1.26. COPD also was associated with a partially adjusted relative increase of 13.1% in health care costs and an increase of 4.6% with full adjustment.

Frailty, cancer, and procedure type were factors that modified the association between COPD and outcomes. “Procedures such as open aortic and upper abdominal surgery are associated with higher postoperative risks irrespective of COPD status, whereas others, such as orthopedic and lower abdominal surgery, may be of significantly greater risk for patients with COPD,” the authors wrote. “Our results suggest that perioperative management of patients with COPD requires careful consideration of the multiple domains that contribute to their elevated perioperative risk.

“Our finding that patients with COPD are at risk beyond 30 days after surgery suggests that it may be worthwhile to additionally support these patients’ recovery well beyond the first month after the procedure,” said Dr. Sankar.
 

Shared decision-making

Commenting on the study, William Whalen, MD, a pulmonary critical care specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said, “I echo the authors’ sentiments that these findings highlight how chronically ill COPD patients are, which may be playing a role in the elevated mortality seen in this study.”

One caveat is in regard to the interpretation of the interaction effects of the study, he said. “Clinicians are unlikely to send patients who are frail or have multiple comorbidities to overly complex surgeries. Therefore, these effects may be misestimated due to selection bias.”

Two questions remain after reading the study, he added. “The first is how the degree of obstruction (i.e., the severity of COPD) impacts long-term mortality. Previous observational studies in nonsurgical COPD patients have shown increased mortality as the severity of obstruction increases. The second is how much of the long-term mortality observed in this study is related to respiratory disease from COPD. Patients with COPD are complex, and many die from nonrespiratory-related causes.”

Dr. Whalen suggests that discussion be held with the surgical team about the long-term morbidity and mortality with and without surgical intervention. Such a discussion could inform a shared decision-making process with the patient.

“Some procedures may be necessary to reduce immediate mortality, such as aortic aneurysmal repair, so [the risk of] longer-term mortality may be more acceptable in this setting,” he said. “Less straightforward are procedures that may improve quality of life. Would a patient accept an increased long-term mortality [risk] if that meant living without orthopedic-related pain?”

The study was funded by the Government of Ontario. Dr. Sankar and Dr. Whalen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are more likely to die within a year of undergoing elective surgery and to incur higher health care costs than are similar patients without COPD, data suggest.

An analysis of close to a million patient records found that, after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, procedure type, and comorbidities, patients with COPD were 26% more likely to die in the year after surgery than were those without COPD. Moreover, COPD was associated with a 4.6% increase in health care costs.

Previous studies have evaluated outcomes for the first 30 days after surgery. Those data “may not adequately capture the overall burden of surgery and how long it may take patients to recover,” study author Ashwin Sankar, MD, a clinician-investigator at St. Michael’s Hospital and assistant professor of anesthesia at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We found that COPD often coexists with other conditions, like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and frailty,” Dr. Sankar added. “We would suggest that clinicians use COPD as a flag for other conditions to ensure that all modifiable risk factors are optimized prior to surgery.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Additional recovery support

The authors analyzed data from 932,616 patients who underwent intermediate-risk to high-risk elective noncardiac surgeries from 2005 to 2019 in Ontario. Procedures included carotid endarterectomy, open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, peripheral arterial bypass, total hip replacement, total knee replacement, shoulder surgery, large-bowel surgery, partial liver resection, pancreaticoduodenectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and hysterectomy.

The researchers quantified the associations of COPD with survival and costs. Their analyses included partial adjustment for sociodemographic factors and procedure type and full adjustment, which included comorbidities.

The primary outcome was all-cause death in the year after surgery; the secondary outcome was total health care costs in that year.

The mean age of the population was 65 years, and 60% of patients were women. A total of 170,482 (18%) patients had COPD. Compared with those without COPD, the patients with COPD were older and were more likely to be male, to be in a lower income quintile, to be residents of long-term care facilities, and to have been admitted to the hospital before surgery. They were also more likely to have comorbidities, including coronary artery disease, heart failure, and lung cancer.

A larger proportion of patients with COPD had frailty and medium to high comorbidity. They also more frequently underwent orthopedic, open upper abdominal, and vascular surgery.

During the year after surgery, 52,021 (5.6%) patients died, including 18,007 (10.6%) with COPD and 34,014 (4.5%) without. Those with COPD were more likely to die within 30 days of surgery (3.4% vs 1.2%).

For patients with COPD, the partially adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 1.61 for risk of death; the fully adjusted HR was 1.26. COPD also was associated with a partially adjusted relative increase of 13.1% in health care costs and an increase of 4.6% with full adjustment.

Frailty, cancer, and procedure type were factors that modified the association between COPD and outcomes. “Procedures such as open aortic and upper abdominal surgery are associated with higher postoperative risks irrespective of COPD status, whereas others, such as orthopedic and lower abdominal surgery, may be of significantly greater risk for patients with COPD,” the authors wrote. “Our results suggest that perioperative management of patients with COPD requires careful consideration of the multiple domains that contribute to their elevated perioperative risk.

“Our finding that patients with COPD are at risk beyond 30 days after surgery suggests that it may be worthwhile to additionally support these patients’ recovery well beyond the first month after the procedure,” said Dr. Sankar.
 

Shared decision-making

Commenting on the study, William Whalen, MD, a pulmonary critical care specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said, “I echo the authors’ sentiments that these findings highlight how chronically ill COPD patients are, which may be playing a role in the elevated mortality seen in this study.”

One caveat is in regard to the interpretation of the interaction effects of the study, he said. “Clinicians are unlikely to send patients who are frail or have multiple comorbidities to overly complex surgeries. Therefore, these effects may be misestimated due to selection bias.”

Two questions remain after reading the study, he added. “The first is how the degree of obstruction (i.e., the severity of COPD) impacts long-term mortality. Previous observational studies in nonsurgical COPD patients have shown increased mortality as the severity of obstruction increases. The second is how much of the long-term mortality observed in this study is related to respiratory disease from COPD. Patients with COPD are complex, and many die from nonrespiratory-related causes.”

Dr. Whalen suggests that discussion be held with the surgical team about the long-term morbidity and mortality with and without surgical intervention. Such a discussion could inform a shared decision-making process with the patient.

“Some procedures may be necessary to reduce immediate mortality, such as aortic aneurysmal repair, so [the risk of] longer-term mortality may be more acceptable in this setting,” he said. “Less straightforward are procedures that may improve quality of life. Would a patient accept an increased long-term mortality [risk] if that meant living without orthopedic-related pain?”

The study was funded by the Government of Ontario. Dr. Sankar and Dr. Whalen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are more likely to die within a year of undergoing elective surgery and to incur higher health care costs than are similar patients without COPD, data suggest.

An analysis of close to a million patient records found that, after adjustment for sociodemographic factors, procedure type, and comorbidities, patients with COPD were 26% more likely to die in the year after surgery than were those without COPD. Moreover, COPD was associated with a 4.6% increase in health care costs.

Previous studies have evaluated outcomes for the first 30 days after surgery. Those data “may not adequately capture the overall burden of surgery and how long it may take patients to recover,” study author Ashwin Sankar, MD, a clinician-investigator at St. Michael’s Hospital and assistant professor of anesthesia at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We found that COPD often coexists with other conditions, like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and frailty,” Dr. Sankar added. “We would suggest that clinicians use COPD as a flag for other conditions to ensure that all modifiable risk factors are optimized prior to surgery.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Additional recovery support

The authors analyzed data from 932,616 patients who underwent intermediate-risk to high-risk elective noncardiac surgeries from 2005 to 2019 in Ontario. Procedures included carotid endarterectomy, open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, peripheral arterial bypass, total hip replacement, total knee replacement, shoulder surgery, large-bowel surgery, partial liver resection, pancreaticoduodenectomy, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and hysterectomy.

The researchers quantified the associations of COPD with survival and costs. Their analyses included partial adjustment for sociodemographic factors and procedure type and full adjustment, which included comorbidities.

The primary outcome was all-cause death in the year after surgery; the secondary outcome was total health care costs in that year.

The mean age of the population was 65 years, and 60% of patients were women. A total of 170,482 (18%) patients had COPD. Compared with those without COPD, the patients with COPD were older and were more likely to be male, to be in a lower income quintile, to be residents of long-term care facilities, and to have been admitted to the hospital before surgery. They were also more likely to have comorbidities, including coronary artery disease, heart failure, and lung cancer.

A larger proportion of patients with COPD had frailty and medium to high comorbidity. They also more frequently underwent orthopedic, open upper abdominal, and vascular surgery.

During the year after surgery, 52,021 (5.6%) patients died, including 18,007 (10.6%) with COPD and 34,014 (4.5%) without. Those with COPD were more likely to die within 30 days of surgery (3.4% vs 1.2%).

For patients with COPD, the partially adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 1.61 for risk of death; the fully adjusted HR was 1.26. COPD also was associated with a partially adjusted relative increase of 13.1% in health care costs and an increase of 4.6% with full adjustment.

Frailty, cancer, and procedure type were factors that modified the association between COPD and outcomes. “Procedures such as open aortic and upper abdominal surgery are associated with higher postoperative risks irrespective of COPD status, whereas others, such as orthopedic and lower abdominal surgery, may be of significantly greater risk for patients with COPD,” the authors wrote. “Our results suggest that perioperative management of patients with COPD requires careful consideration of the multiple domains that contribute to their elevated perioperative risk.

“Our finding that patients with COPD are at risk beyond 30 days after surgery suggests that it may be worthwhile to additionally support these patients’ recovery well beyond the first month after the procedure,” said Dr. Sankar.
 

Shared decision-making

Commenting on the study, William Whalen, MD, a pulmonary critical care specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said, “I echo the authors’ sentiments that these findings highlight how chronically ill COPD patients are, which may be playing a role in the elevated mortality seen in this study.”

One caveat is in regard to the interpretation of the interaction effects of the study, he said. “Clinicians are unlikely to send patients who are frail or have multiple comorbidities to overly complex surgeries. Therefore, these effects may be misestimated due to selection bias.”

Two questions remain after reading the study, he added. “The first is how the degree of obstruction (i.e., the severity of COPD) impacts long-term mortality. Previous observational studies in nonsurgical COPD patients have shown increased mortality as the severity of obstruction increases. The second is how much of the long-term mortality observed in this study is related to respiratory disease from COPD. Patients with COPD are complex, and many die from nonrespiratory-related causes.”

Dr. Whalen suggests that discussion be held with the surgical team about the long-term morbidity and mortality with and without surgical intervention. Such a discussion could inform a shared decision-making process with the patient.

“Some procedures may be necessary to reduce immediate mortality, such as aortic aneurysmal repair, so [the risk of] longer-term mortality may be more acceptable in this setting,” he said. “Less straightforward are procedures that may improve quality of life. Would a patient accept an increased long-term mortality [risk] if that meant living without orthopedic-related pain?”

The study was funded by the Government of Ontario. Dr. Sankar and Dr. Whalen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

People with long COVID may have dizziness, headaches, sleep problems, sluggish thinking, and many other problems. But they can also face another problem – stigma.

Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.

The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always. 

In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.

Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.

“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”

Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.

“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.

Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.

“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.

One example is people who cannot return to work.

“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”

Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.

“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.

She recalls her first patient with long COVID.

“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.

“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.

Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.

More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.

That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.

“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.

Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.

He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”

The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:

• Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
• Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
• Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.

“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.

Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.

Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.

Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.

The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.

“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.

In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”

Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.

“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.

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

People with long COVID may have dizziness, headaches, sleep problems, sluggish thinking, and many other problems. But they can also face another problem – stigma.

Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.

The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always. 

In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.

Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.

“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”

Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.

“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.

Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.

“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.

One example is people who cannot return to work.

“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”

Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.

“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.

She recalls her first patient with long COVID.

“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.

“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.

Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.

More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.

That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.

“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.

Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.

He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”

The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:

• Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
• Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
• Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.

“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.

Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.

Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.

Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.

The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.

“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.

In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”

Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.

“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.

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

People with long COVID may have dizziness, headaches, sleep problems, sluggish thinking, and many other problems. But they can also face another problem – stigma.

Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.

The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always. 

In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.

Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.

“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”

Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.

“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.

Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.

“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.

One example is people who cannot return to work.

“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”

Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.

“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.

She recalls her first patient with long COVID.

“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.

“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.

Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.

More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.

That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.

“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.

Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.

He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”

The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:

• Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
• Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
• Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.

“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.

Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.

Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.

Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.

The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.

“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.

In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”

Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.

“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.

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

Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide.¹ While many of these cases can achieve control with standard therapy, 5% to 10% of these cases are classified as severe asthma, remaining poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β agonists (LABA).² These patients also account for the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with the disease, with increased hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, detrimental adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and lower quality of life.^3-6 Additionally, the financial repercussions of severe asthma are notable; in the United States, the estimated cost of asthma management is $82 billion annually, with $3 billion accounting for asthma-related work/school absences.⁷

In the past several years, the use of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin-4 (IL-4), and anti-IL-5 biologic agents for severe asthma has been shown to decrease asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid use, and decrease hospitalizations, especially for type 2 helper T cell (TH2-high) asthma.^8-10 However, clinicians have observed significant barriers to the implementation and widespread use of biologics, including insurance coverage, long wait times, follow-up, and limited access for lower income groups.^11,12

This article describes a unique model for a severe asthma clinic located at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WDCVAMC) that is dually staffed by an allergist and pulmonologist. This clinic uses biologic agents for patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, many of whom require repeated or prolonged steroid use, in addition to prolonged and recurrent hospitalizations for exacerbations. The objective of this clinic is to provide a standardized approach to the management of severe asthma with the perspective of both an allergist and pulmonologist, thereby reducing the need to schedule appointments with multiple specialties and reducing delays in initiating biologics. This article presents the preliminary findings of 30 months of severe asthma management with various biologic agents, examining the impact of these therapies on hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations, ICU stays, and OCS use. The findings of this study support the benefits of biologics and suggest that the use of these agents within a dually staffed clinic may be a particularly effective model through which to manage severe asthma.

Background

Asthma affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States.¹³ Veterans are a population particularly impacted by asthma. Between 2015 and 2018, 10.9% of all veterans reported being diagnosed with asthma and 5.1% stated that they currently have asthma, compared with 13.4% and 8.0% of nonveterans, respectively.¹⁴ Veterans are susceptible to many of the factors that can trigger exacerbations while engaging in military service, such as chemical and environmental exposures both abroad and domestically.^15,16 Additionally, medication adherence is often challenging among the veteran population, particularly with more involved therapy, such as inhaler use.¹⁷ Such factors contribute to asthma exacerbations, with 2.9% of veterans reporting at least 1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months.¹⁴

Over the past several years, the development and use of biologic agents have transformed the management of severe asthma.⁸ Before the development of biologic agents for severe asthma, treatment options for patients were limited. While OCS are frequently used for asthma exacerbations, they are associated with a multiplicity of undesirable adverse effects, including weight gain, mood lability, gastrointestinal upset, hyperglycemia, risk of bone fractures, and hypertension.^18-20 The regular use of OCS are particularly problematic among other medical comorbidities commonly affecting the veteran population, such as diabetes and hypertension.^21-22

The WDCVAMC severe allergy clinic used 3 biologic agents: omalizumab (anti-IgE), benralizumab (anti-IL-5), and agent dupilumab (anti-IL-4). These medications have shown significant improvements in quality of life, reduction in asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, and decreased use of OCS.^8,9 While research has firmly established the medical benefits of the use of biologic agents in severe asthma, several barriers exist in implementing widespread use.^11,12

In Gelhorn and colleagues’ study examining both physician and patient challenges in the use of biologics for severe asthma, scheduling, administrative time, and insurance costs were found to be major barriers to the use of these medications.¹² Patients expressed a preference for the administration of these medications in a specialist’s office but cited long wait times and scheduling difficulties as barriers. One of the most notable challenges from the physician perspective was the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from insurance companies, requiring them to devote significant portions of time to prior authorizations and documentation.¹²

This article examines a dual specialty clinic that focuses on the treatment of severe asthma with biologic agents. This model is unique for several reasons. First, given the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care model, the health care practitioners (HCPs) in this clinic can avoid much of the administrative burden of obtaining reimbursement or working with insurance companies. Additionally, by dedicating specific days to the severe asthma clinic, patients do not experience long wait times to see both an allergist and pulmonologist. By seeing both clinicians, concurrent allergic and pulmonary issues can be addressed in the same visit, rather than delaying treatment by waiting on 2 specialist appointments.

Severe Asthma Clinic

The severe asthma clinic was started in September 2017 by a pulmonologist and an allergist at WDCVAMC. After experiencing substantial delays with the initiation of biologics for their patients and multiple referrals between their clinics, these physicians wanted to start a dually staffed asthma clinic to specifically focus on evaluating and treating severe asthma. A dedicated severe asthma clinic allowed the allergist and pulmonologist to streamline resources and collaborate to advocate for patients with the pharmacy section. Additionally, patients can benefit from the perspective of both specialists, as both the pulmonologist and allergist evaluate each patient and discuss the next steps of management.

This clinic is composed of 4 registered nurses, an allergist, and a pulmonologist. Clinic is held twice monthly through both telemedicine and in-office visits. The VA has strict guidelines for the use of certain biologics, including blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/µL, failure of traditional therapy, and frequent use of OCS. Additionally, to ensure these biologic agents are prescribed to patients that will benefit from them, the patients enrolled in this clinic are already on maximum therapy for their asthma, meaning all other therapeutic options (inhalers and oral medications) are being used. The clinic services all patients with severe asthma, not just patients who are on biologic therapy. Often, patients are referred to the severe allergy clinic late in their disease course given a lack of familiarity with biologic agents from prescribers and both institutional and insurance barriers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests were recorded at each visit. Initially during the pandemic, the clinic transitioned to primarily telemedicine visits due to patients’ hesitance to seek in-person care. More recently, the clinic has transitioned back to primarily office visits; patients are seen in clinic on average every 3 months. At each visit, the patient is seen by both the pulmonologist and allergist. Additionally, the nursing staff reviews inhaler adherence with patients, spacer use, documents, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and schedules follow-up visits.

Every 4 to 8 weeks, patients receive biologics agent at the WDCVAMC infusion center depending on the agent. The infusion center also instructs patients how to handle self-administered medications, like benralizumab, if the patient expresses a preference for taking it at home. Omalizumab has a boxed warning for anaphylaxis, although the other biologics in this study have a low risk of anaphylaxis. All patients receiving omalizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were provided with epinephrine injection devices in case of an allergic reaction and were taught how to use them in the clinic.^23,24

If patients continued to experience asthma exacerbations after the initiation of a biologic, a change in agent was considered after 4 to 6 months. Additionally, a complete blood count, respiratory allergy panel, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were completed.

Clinic Patients

Preliminary data were obtained from a retrospective chart review of 15 patients enrolled in the severe asthma clinic over 30 months. The inclusion criteria for chart review consisted of patients aged > 18 years receiving a biologic agent for > 3 months for the treatment of severe asthma. The outcomes examined included steroid use, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, FEV₁, and ICU stays.

Seven patients used benralizumab, 6 used dupilumab, and 2 used omalizumab (Table).

There was a notable clinical improvement in these patients. Before starting a biologic agent, all the patients in this study were prescribed steroids at least once a year for an asthma exacerbation, with a mean of 4.2 steroid tapers per year.

Discussion

The 15 patients in this initial data were referred to the severe asthma clinic by pulmonology, ear, nose, and throat (ENT), primary care, and a hospitalist during an in-patient stay. As the enrollment in our clinic grows, an increasing number of patients are referred from the allergy clinic as well. Patients in the severe asthma clinic also are referred by regional centers as news of the clinic is spread by word of mouth to surrounding VA facilities. As our clinic gains the capacity to serve more patients, we hope to contact WDCVAMC primary care, pulmonology, allergy, and ENT departments to raise awareness of the clinic.

Benralizumab and dupilumab were the most used agents in this preliminary data. This finding was largely due to the ability of patients to self-administer benralizumab, which was particularly beneficial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of note, 5 patients in this study switched from another biologic agent to benralizumab due to the ability to self-administer. Three of 5 patients that required steroids after initiating benralizumab used fewer steroids than they had previously. This finding suggests benralizumab may be the preferred agent when travel time to health care is a challenge, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and transportation.

This preliminary data supports previous studies that have demonstrated that biologic agents improve clinical outcomes by reducing asthma exacerbations, OCS use, hospitalizations, and ICU stays for patients on all 4 biologic agents. In addition to improving patient health through avoiding complications of prolonged OCS use and hospital stays, the decrease in ED visits and hospitalizations provides a substantial cost reduction to the health care system.  

These findings highlight the strength of a unique model of a combined allergy/pulmonary clinic. Before this combined clinic model, both pulmonology and allergy clinics noted delays in the initiation of biologics for patients who were potential candidates. Impediments include referrals between each specialty for evaluation of concurrent pulmonary conditions or allergy testing, overlap in asthma management, and a delay in coordination with the pharmacy department to start biologic agents. A dedicated severe asthma clinic staffed by both an allergist and pulmonologist provides a convenient option for patients to be seen by both specialists, reducing the need for separate appointments with each specialty, transportation to those appointments, and clinical time. This is particularly beneficial in a clinic such as this model, as this clinic serves patients from 4 states and Washington, DC. An additional benefit of this model is trained staff who directly communicate with the pharmacy in the initiation of these agents, allocate time to educating patients in biologic use, and coordinate follow-up.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this report. First, the number of patients examined in this preliminary data set is small. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited ability to see patients in person, and patients were seen exclusively over telemedicine for several months. For this reason, collecting data such as patient surveys and laboratory work following the initiation of a biologic was a challenge. Additionally, during the height of COVID-19, WDCVAMC did not perform aerosolizing procedures, such as PFTs and FENOs; thus, peak flows were obtained instead. Examining metrics, such as FENOs and IgE levels, and expanding PFT data would provide additional insight into the impact of biologic agents on clinical outcomes. Patient survey data in the form of ACTs or satisfaction surveys would also yield important data examining the impact of this clinic design and biologic use on patient experience. As of December 2022, 114 patients are enrolled in the clinic. We are working to collect the above laboratory results and spirometry for these patients so that these results can be published with a more robust data set. Another limitation of the information presented is that it is a retrospective data analysis; the data collected was contingent upon documentation and the assumption that these patients were exclusively receiving care through the VA. For example, steroid use before and after initiation of biologic was taken from asthma clinic notes and the patient’s medication list. Therefore, there is a possibility that not all instances were accounted for if that patient sought care outside the VA or whether it was not documented in a follow-up note.

Conclusions

The model of a combined allergy/pulmonology clinic can be particularly efficacious in the treatment of severe asthma, as it reduces the need for multiple appointments with different specialties, reduces wait time before starting a biologic agent, and offers the perspective of 2 specialists. This kind of model could be an example to many clinics in the VA. With a rapid increase in telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple physicians consulting simultaneously is becoming a more feasible possibility across multiple specialties. As the use of biologics becomes more widespread, a combined clinic design is an efficient and promising method to improve severe asthma management.

This preliminary data continue to support previous research that shows biologic agents have led to better clinical outcomes through the reduction of asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, and improved PFTs. While this initial data set highlights the results for 15 patients, there are 86 patients currently enrolled in this clinic. We are collecting additional data to publish more comprehensive results.

Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide.¹ While many of these cases can achieve control with standard therapy, 5% to 10% of these cases are classified as severe asthma, remaining poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β agonists (LABA).² These patients also account for the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with the disease, with increased hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, detrimental adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and lower quality of life.^3-6 Additionally, the financial repercussions of severe asthma are notable; in the United States, the estimated cost of asthma management is $82 billion annually, with $3 billion accounting for asthma-related work/school absences.⁷

In the past several years, the use of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin-4 (IL-4), and anti-IL-5 biologic agents for severe asthma has been shown to decrease asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid use, and decrease hospitalizations, especially for type 2 helper T cell (TH2-high) asthma.^8-10 However, clinicians have observed significant barriers to the implementation and widespread use of biologics, including insurance coverage, long wait times, follow-up, and limited access for lower income groups.^11,12

This article describes a unique model for a severe asthma clinic located at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WDCVAMC) that is dually staffed by an allergist and pulmonologist. This clinic uses biologic agents for patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, many of whom require repeated or prolonged steroid use, in addition to prolonged and recurrent hospitalizations for exacerbations. The objective of this clinic is to provide a standardized approach to the management of severe asthma with the perspective of both an allergist and pulmonologist, thereby reducing the need to schedule appointments with multiple specialties and reducing delays in initiating biologics. This article presents the preliminary findings of 30 months of severe asthma management with various biologic agents, examining the impact of these therapies on hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations, ICU stays, and OCS use. The findings of this study support the benefits of biologics and suggest that the use of these agents within a dually staffed clinic may be a particularly effective model through which to manage severe asthma.

Background

Asthma affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States.¹³ Veterans are a population particularly impacted by asthma. Between 2015 and 2018, 10.9% of all veterans reported being diagnosed with asthma and 5.1% stated that they currently have asthma, compared with 13.4% and 8.0% of nonveterans, respectively.¹⁴ Veterans are susceptible to many of the factors that can trigger exacerbations while engaging in military service, such as chemical and environmental exposures both abroad and domestically.^15,16 Additionally, medication adherence is often challenging among the veteran population, particularly with more involved therapy, such as inhaler use.¹⁷ Such factors contribute to asthma exacerbations, with 2.9% of veterans reporting at least 1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months.¹⁴

Over the past several years, the development and use of biologic agents have transformed the management of severe asthma.⁸ Before the development of biologic agents for severe asthma, treatment options for patients were limited. While OCS are frequently used for asthma exacerbations, they are associated with a multiplicity of undesirable adverse effects, including weight gain, mood lability, gastrointestinal upset, hyperglycemia, risk of bone fractures, and hypertension.^18-20 The regular use of OCS are particularly problematic among other medical comorbidities commonly affecting the veteran population, such as diabetes and hypertension.^21-22

The WDCVAMC severe allergy clinic used 3 biologic agents: omalizumab (anti-IgE), benralizumab (anti-IL-5), and agent dupilumab (anti-IL-4). These medications have shown significant improvements in quality of life, reduction in asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, and decreased use of OCS.^8,9 While research has firmly established the medical benefits of the use of biologic agents in severe asthma, several barriers exist in implementing widespread use.^11,12

In Gelhorn and colleagues’ study examining both physician and patient challenges in the use of biologics for severe asthma, scheduling, administrative time, and insurance costs were found to be major barriers to the use of these medications.¹² Patients expressed a preference for the administration of these medications in a specialist’s office but cited long wait times and scheduling difficulties as barriers. One of the most notable challenges from the physician perspective was the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from insurance companies, requiring them to devote significant portions of time to prior authorizations and documentation.¹²

This article examines a dual specialty clinic that focuses on the treatment of severe asthma with biologic agents. This model is unique for several reasons. First, given the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care model, the health care practitioners (HCPs) in this clinic can avoid much of the administrative burden of obtaining reimbursement or working with insurance companies. Additionally, by dedicating specific days to the severe asthma clinic, patients do not experience long wait times to see both an allergist and pulmonologist. By seeing both clinicians, concurrent allergic and pulmonary issues can be addressed in the same visit, rather than delaying treatment by waiting on 2 specialist appointments.

Severe Asthma Clinic

The severe asthma clinic was started in September 2017 by a pulmonologist and an allergist at WDCVAMC. After experiencing substantial delays with the initiation of biologics for their patients and multiple referrals between their clinics, these physicians wanted to start a dually staffed asthma clinic to specifically focus on evaluating and treating severe asthma. A dedicated severe asthma clinic allowed the allergist and pulmonologist to streamline resources and collaborate to advocate for patients with the pharmacy section. Additionally, patients can benefit from the perspective of both specialists, as both the pulmonologist and allergist evaluate each patient and discuss the next steps of management.

This clinic is composed of 4 registered nurses, an allergist, and a pulmonologist. Clinic is held twice monthly through both telemedicine and in-office visits. The VA has strict guidelines for the use of certain biologics, including blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/µL, failure of traditional therapy, and frequent use of OCS. Additionally, to ensure these biologic agents are prescribed to patients that will benefit from them, the patients enrolled in this clinic are already on maximum therapy for their asthma, meaning all other therapeutic options (inhalers and oral medications) are being used. The clinic services all patients with severe asthma, not just patients who are on biologic therapy. Often, patients are referred to the severe allergy clinic late in their disease course given a lack of familiarity with biologic agents from prescribers and both institutional and insurance barriers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests were recorded at each visit. Initially during the pandemic, the clinic transitioned to primarily telemedicine visits due to patients’ hesitance to seek in-person care. More recently, the clinic has transitioned back to primarily office visits; patients are seen in clinic on average every 3 months. At each visit, the patient is seen by both the pulmonologist and allergist. Additionally, the nursing staff reviews inhaler adherence with patients, spacer use, documents, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and schedules follow-up visits.

Every 4 to 8 weeks, patients receive biologics agent at the WDCVAMC infusion center depending on the agent. The infusion center also instructs patients how to handle self-administered medications, like benralizumab, if the patient expresses a preference for taking it at home. Omalizumab has a boxed warning for anaphylaxis, although the other biologics in this study have a low risk of anaphylaxis. All patients receiving omalizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were provided with epinephrine injection devices in case of an allergic reaction and were taught how to use them in the clinic.^23,24

If patients continued to experience asthma exacerbations after the initiation of a biologic, a change in agent was considered after 4 to 6 months. Additionally, a complete blood count, respiratory allergy panel, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were completed.

Clinic Patients

Preliminary data were obtained from a retrospective chart review of 15 patients enrolled in the severe asthma clinic over 30 months. The inclusion criteria for chart review consisted of patients aged > 18 years receiving a biologic agent for > 3 months for the treatment of severe asthma. The outcomes examined included steroid use, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, FEV₁, and ICU stays.

Seven patients used benralizumab, 6 used dupilumab, and 2 used omalizumab (Table).

There was a notable clinical improvement in these patients. Before starting a biologic agent, all the patients in this study were prescribed steroids at least once a year for an asthma exacerbation, with a mean of 4.2 steroid tapers per year.

Discussion

The 15 patients in this initial data were referred to the severe asthma clinic by pulmonology, ear, nose, and throat (ENT), primary care, and a hospitalist during an in-patient stay. As the enrollment in our clinic grows, an increasing number of patients are referred from the allergy clinic as well. Patients in the severe asthma clinic also are referred by regional centers as news of the clinic is spread by word of mouth to surrounding VA facilities. As our clinic gains the capacity to serve more patients, we hope to contact WDCVAMC primary care, pulmonology, allergy, and ENT departments to raise awareness of the clinic.

Benralizumab and dupilumab were the most used agents in this preliminary data. This finding was largely due to the ability of patients to self-administer benralizumab, which was particularly beneficial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of note, 5 patients in this study switched from another biologic agent to benralizumab due to the ability to self-administer. Three of 5 patients that required steroids after initiating benralizumab used fewer steroids than they had previously. This finding suggests benralizumab may be the preferred agent when travel time to health care is a challenge, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and transportation.

This preliminary data supports previous studies that have demonstrated that biologic agents improve clinical outcomes by reducing asthma exacerbations, OCS use, hospitalizations, and ICU stays for patients on all 4 biologic agents. In addition to improving patient health through avoiding complications of prolonged OCS use and hospital stays, the decrease in ED visits and hospitalizations provides a substantial cost reduction to the health care system.  

These findings highlight the strength of a unique model of a combined allergy/pulmonary clinic. Before this combined clinic model, both pulmonology and allergy clinics noted delays in the initiation of biologics for patients who were potential candidates. Impediments include referrals between each specialty for evaluation of concurrent pulmonary conditions or allergy testing, overlap in asthma management, and a delay in coordination with the pharmacy department to start biologic agents. A dedicated severe asthma clinic staffed by both an allergist and pulmonologist provides a convenient option for patients to be seen by both specialists, reducing the need for separate appointments with each specialty, transportation to those appointments, and clinical time. This is particularly beneficial in a clinic such as this model, as this clinic serves patients from 4 states and Washington, DC. An additional benefit of this model is trained staff who directly communicate with the pharmacy in the initiation of these agents, allocate time to educating patients in biologic use, and coordinate follow-up.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this report. First, the number of patients examined in this preliminary data set is small. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited ability to see patients in person, and patients were seen exclusively over telemedicine for several months. For this reason, collecting data such as patient surveys and laboratory work following the initiation of a biologic was a challenge. Additionally, during the height of COVID-19, WDCVAMC did not perform aerosolizing procedures, such as PFTs and FENOs; thus, peak flows were obtained instead. Examining metrics, such as FENOs and IgE levels, and expanding PFT data would provide additional insight into the impact of biologic agents on clinical outcomes. Patient survey data in the form of ACTs or satisfaction surveys would also yield important data examining the impact of this clinic design and biologic use on patient experience. As of December 2022, 114 patients are enrolled in the clinic. We are working to collect the above laboratory results and spirometry for these patients so that these results can be published with a more robust data set. Another limitation of the information presented is that it is a retrospective data analysis; the data collected was contingent upon documentation and the assumption that these patients were exclusively receiving care through the VA. For example, steroid use before and after initiation of biologic was taken from asthma clinic notes and the patient’s medication list. Therefore, there is a possibility that not all instances were accounted for if that patient sought care outside the VA or whether it was not documented in a follow-up note.

Conclusions

The model of a combined allergy/pulmonology clinic can be particularly efficacious in the treatment of severe asthma, as it reduces the need for multiple appointments with different specialties, reduces wait time before starting a biologic agent, and offers the perspective of 2 specialists. This kind of model could be an example to many clinics in the VA. With a rapid increase in telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple physicians consulting simultaneously is becoming a more feasible possibility across multiple specialties. As the use of biologics becomes more widespread, a combined clinic design is an efficient and promising method to improve severe asthma management.

This preliminary data continue to support previous research that shows biologic agents have led to better clinical outcomes through the reduction of asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, and improved PFTs. While this initial data set highlights the results for 15 patients, there are 86 patients currently enrolled in this clinic. We are collecting additional data to publish more comprehensive results.

Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide.¹ While many of these cases can achieve control with standard therapy, 5% to 10% of these cases are classified as severe asthma, remaining poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β agonists (LABA).² These patients also account for the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with the disease, with increased hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, detrimental adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and lower quality of life.^3-6 Additionally, the financial repercussions of severe asthma are notable; in the United States, the estimated cost of asthma management is $82 billion annually, with $3 billion accounting for asthma-related work/school absences.⁷

In the past several years, the use of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin-4 (IL-4), and anti-IL-5 biologic agents for severe asthma has been shown to decrease asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid use, and decrease hospitalizations, especially for type 2 helper T cell (TH2-high) asthma.^8-10 However, clinicians have observed significant barriers to the implementation and widespread use of biologics, including insurance coverage, long wait times, follow-up, and limited access for lower income groups.^11,12

This article describes a unique model for a severe asthma clinic located at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WDCVAMC) that is dually staffed by an allergist and pulmonologist. This clinic uses biologic agents for patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, many of whom require repeated or prolonged steroid use, in addition to prolonged and recurrent hospitalizations for exacerbations. The objective of this clinic is to provide a standardized approach to the management of severe asthma with the perspective of both an allergist and pulmonologist, thereby reducing the need to schedule appointments with multiple specialties and reducing delays in initiating biologics. This article presents the preliminary findings of 30 months of severe asthma management with various biologic agents, examining the impact of these therapies on hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations, ICU stays, and OCS use. The findings of this study support the benefits of biologics and suggest that the use of these agents within a dually staffed clinic may be a particularly effective model through which to manage severe asthma.

Background

Asthma affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States.¹³ Veterans are a population particularly impacted by asthma. Between 2015 and 2018, 10.9% of all veterans reported being diagnosed with asthma and 5.1% stated that they currently have asthma, compared with 13.4% and 8.0% of nonveterans, respectively.¹⁴ Veterans are susceptible to many of the factors that can trigger exacerbations while engaging in military service, such as chemical and environmental exposures both abroad and domestically.^15,16 Additionally, medication adherence is often challenging among the veteran population, particularly with more involved therapy, such as inhaler use.¹⁷ Such factors contribute to asthma exacerbations, with 2.9% of veterans reporting at least 1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months.¹⁴

Over the past several years, the development and use of biologic agents have transformed the management of severe asthma.⁸ Before the development of biologic agents for severe asthma, treatment options for patients were limited. While OCS are frequently used for asthma exacerbations, they are associated with a multiplicity of undesirable adverse effects, including weight gain, mood lability, gastrointestinal upset, hyperglycemia, risk of bone fractures, and hypertension.^18-20 The regular use of OCS are particularly problematic among other medical comorbidities commonly affecting the veteran population, such as diabetes and hypertension.^21-22

The WDCVAMC severe allergy clinic used 3 biologic agents: omalizumab (anti-IgE), benralizumab (anti-IL-5), and agent dupilumab (anti-IL-4). These medications have shown significant improvements in quality of life, reduction in asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, and decreased use of OCS.^8,9 While research has firmly established the medical benefits of the use of biologic agents in severe asthma, several barriers exist in implementing widespread use.^11,12

In Gelhorn and colleagues’ study examining both physician and patient challenges in the use of biologics for severe asthma, scheduling, administrative time, and insurance costs were found to be major barriers to the use of these medications.¹² Patients expressed a preference for the administration of these medications in a specialist’s office but cited long wait times and scheduling difficulties as barriers. One of the most notable challenges from the physician perspective was the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from insurance companies, requiring them to devote significant portions of time to prior authorizations and documentation.¹²

This article examines a dual specialty clinic that focuses on the treatment of severe asthma with biologic agents. This model is unique for several reasons. First, given the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care model, the health care practitioners (HCPs) in this clinic can avoid much of the administrative burden of obtaining reimbursement or working with insurance companies. Additionally, by dedicating specific days to the severe asthma clinic, patients do not experience long wait times to see both an allergist and pulmonologist. By seeing both clinicians, concurrent allergic and pulmonary issues can be addressed in the same visit, rather than delaying treatment by waiting on 2 specialist appointments.

Severe Asthma Clinic

The severe asthma clinic was started in September 2017 by a pulmonologist and an allergist at WDCVAMC. After experiencing substantial delays with the initiation of biologics for their patients and multiple referrals between their clinics, these physicians wanted to start a dually staffed asthma clinic to specifically focus on evaluating and treating severe asthma. A dedicated severe asthma clinic allowed the allergist and pulmonologist to streamline resources and collaborate to advocate for patients with the pharmacy section. Additionally, patients can benefit from the perspective of both specialists, as both the pulmonologist and allergist evaluate each patient and discuss the next steps of management.

This clinic is composed of 4 registered nurses, an allergist, and a pulmonologist. Clinic is held twice monthly through both telemedicine and in-office visits. The VA has strict guidelines for the use of certain biologics, including blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/µL, failure of traditional therapy, and frequent use of OCS. Additionally, to ensure these biologic agents are prescribed to patients that will benefit from them, the patients enrolled in this clinic are already on maximum therapy for their asthma, meaning all other therapeutic options (inhalers and oral medications) are being used. The clinic services all patients with severe asthma, not just patients who are on biologic therapy. Often, patients are referred to the severe allergy clinic late in their disease course given a lack of familiarity with biologic agents from prescribers and both institutional and insurance barriers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests were recorded at each visit. Initially during the pandemic, the clinic transitioned to primarily telemedicine visits due to patients’ hesitance to seek in-person care. More recently, the clinic has transitioned back to primarily office visits; patients are seen in clinic on average every 3 months. At each visit, the patient is seen by both the pulmonologist and allergist. Additionally, the nursing staff reviews inhaler adherence with patients, spacer use, documents, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and schedules follow-up visits.

Every 4 to 8 weeks, patients receive biologics agent at the WDCVAMC infusion center depending on the agent. The infusion center also instructs patients how to handle self-administered medications, like benralizumab, if the patient expresses a preference for taking it at home. Omalizumab has a boxed warning for anaphylaxis, although the other biologics in this study have a low risk of anaphylaxis. All patients receiving omalizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were provided with epinephrine injection devices in case of an allergic reaction and were taught how to use them in the clinic.^23,24

If patients continued to experience asthma exacerbations after the initiation of a biologic, a change in agent was considered after 4 to 6 months. Additionally, a complete blood count, respiratory allergy panel, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were completed.

Clinic Patients

Preliminary data were obtained from a retrospective chart review of 15 patients enrolled in the severe asthma clinic over 30 months. The inclusion criteria for chart review consisted of patients aged > 18 years receiving a biologic agent for > 3 months for the treatment of severe asthma. The outcomes examined included steroid use, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, FEV₁, and ICU stays.

Seven patients used benralizumab, 6 used dupilumab, and 2 used omalizumab (Table).

There was a notable clinical improvement in these patients. Before starting a biologic agent, all the patients in this study were prescribed steroids at least once a year for an asthma exacerbation, with a mean of 4.2 steroid tapers per year.

Discussion

The 15 patients in this initial data were referred to the severe asthma clinic by pulmonology, ear, nose, and throat (ENT), primary care, and a hospitalist during an in-patient stay. As the enrollment in our clinic grows, an increasing number of patients are referred from the allergy clinic as well. Patients in the severe asthma clinic also are referred by regional centers as news of the clinic is spread by word of mouth to surrounding VA facilities. As our clinic gains the capacity to serve more patients, we hope to contact WDCVAMC primary care, pulmonology, allergy, and ENT departments to raise awareness of the clinic.

Benralizumab and dupilumab were the most used agents in this preliminary data. This finding was largely due to the ability of patients to self-administer benralizumab, which was particularly beneficial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of note, 5 patients in this study switched from another biologic agent to benralizumab due to the ability to self-administer. Three of 5 patients that required steroids after initiating benralizumab used fewer steroids than they had previously. This finding suggests benralizumab may be the preferred agent when travel time to health care is a challenge, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and transportation.

This preliminary data supports previous studies that have demonstrated that biologic agents improve clinical outcomes by reducing asthma exacerbations, OCS use, hospitalizations, and ICU stays for patients on all 4 biologic agents. In addition to improving patient health through avoiding complications of prolonged OCS use and hospital stays, the decrease in ED visits and hospitalizations provides a substantial cost reduction to the health care system.  

These findings highlight the strength of a unique model of a combined allergy/pulmonary clinic. Before this combined clinic model, both pulmonology and allergy clinics noted delays in the initiation of biologics for patients who were potential candidates. Impediments include referrals between each specialty for evaluation of concurrent pulmonary conditions or allergy testing, overlap in asthma management, and a delay in coordination with the pharmacy department to start biologic agents. A dedicated severe asthma clinic staffed by both an allergist and pulmonologist provides a convenient option for patients to be seen by both specialists, reducing the need for separate appointments with each specialty, transportation to those appointments, and clinical time. This is particularly beneficial in a clinic such as this model, as this clinic serves patients from 4 states and Washington, DC. An additional benefit of this model is trained staff who directly communicate with the pharmacy in the initiation of these agents, allocate time to educating patients in biologic use, and coordinate follow-up.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this report. First, the number of patients examined in this preliminary data set is small. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited ability to see patients in person, and patients were seen exclusively over telemedicine for several months. For this reason, collecting data such as patient surveys and laboratory work following the initiation of a biologic was a challenge. Additionally, during the height of COVID-19, WDCVAMC did not perform aerosolizing procedures, such as PFTs and FENOs; thus, peak flows were obtained instead. Examining metrics, such as FENOs and IgE levels, and expanding PFT data would provide additional insight into the impact of biologic agents on clinical outcomes. Patient survey data in the form of ACTs or satisfaction surveys would also yield important data examining the impact of this clinic design and biologic use on patient experience. As of December 2022, 114 patients are enrolled in the clinic. We are working to collect the above laboratory results and spirometry for these patients so that these results can be published with a more robust data set. Another limitation of the information presented is that it is a retrospective data analysis; the data collected was contingent upon documentation and the assumption that these patients were exclusively receiving care through the VA. For example, steroid use before and after initiation of biologic was taken from asthma clinic notes and the patient’s medication list. Therefore, there is a possibility that not all instances were accounted for if that patient sought care outside the VA or whether it was not documented in a follow-up note.

Conclusions

The model of a combined allergy/pulmonology clinic can be particularly efficacious in the treatment of severe asthma, as it reduces the need for multiple appointments with different specialties, reduces wait time before starting a biologic agent, and offers the perspective of 2 specialists. This kind of model could be an example to many clinics in the VA. With a rapid increase in telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple physicians consulting simultaneously is becoming a more feasible possibility across multiple specialties. As the use of biologics becomes more widespread, a combined clinic design is an efficient and promising method to improve severe asthma management.

This preliminary data continue to support previous research that shows biologic agents have led to better clinical outcomes through the reduction of asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, and improved PFTs. While this initial data set highlights the results for 15 patients, there are 86 patients currently enrolled in this clinic. We are collecting additional data to publish more comprehensive results.

COVID-19 remained the top-ranked cause of death among law enforcement officers last year. 

A new report says 70 officers died of COVID-related causes after getting the virus while on the job. The number is down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to COVID.

The annual count was published Wednesday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

In total, 226 officers died in the line of duty in 2022, which is a decrease of 61% from 2021.

The decrease “is almost entirely related to the significant reduction in COVID-19 deaths,” the report stated. The authors said the decline was likely due to “reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations.”

Reported deaths included federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Firearms-related fatalities were the second-leading cause of death among officers, with 64 in 2022. That count sustains a 21% increase seen in 2021, up from the decade-long average of 53 firearms-related deaths annually from 2010 to 2020. 

Traffic-related causes ranked third for cause of death in 2022, accounting for 56 deaths. 

“While overall line-of-duty deaths are trending down, the continuing trend of greater-than-average firearms-related deaths continues to be a serious concern,” Marcia Ferranto, the organization’s chief executive officer, said in a news release. “Using and reporting on this data allows us to highlight the continuing cost of maintaining our democracy, regrettably measured in the lives of the many law enforcement professionals who sacrifice everything fulfilling their promise to serve and protect.”

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

COVID-19 remained the top-ranked cause of death among law enforcement officers last year. 

A new report says 70 officers died of COVID-related causes after getting the virus while on the job. The number is down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to COVID.

The annual count was published Wednesday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

In total, 226 officers died in the line of duty in 2022, which is a decrease of 61% from 2021.

The decrease “is almost entirely related to the significant reduction in COVID-19 deaths,” the report stated. The authors said the decline was likely due to “reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations.”

Reported deaths included federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Firearms-related fatalities were the second-leading cause of death among officers, with 64 in 2022. That count sustains a 21% increase seen in 2021, up from the decade-long average of 53 firearms-related deaths annually from 2010 to 2020. 

Traffic-related causes ranked third for cause of death in 2022, accounting for 56 deaths. 

“While overall line-of-duty deaths are trending down, the continuing trend of greater-than-average firearms-related deaths continues to be a serious concern,” Marcia Ferranto, the organization’s chief executive officer, said in a news release. “Using and reporting on this data allows us to highlight the continuing cost of maintaining our democracy, regrettably measured in the lives of the many law enforcement professionals who sacrifice everything fulfilling their promise to serve and protect.”

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

COVID-19 remained the top-ranked cause of death among law enforcement officers last year. 

A new report says 70 officers died of COVID-related causes after getting the virus while on the job. The number is down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to COVID.

The annual count was published Wednesday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

In total, 226 officers died in the line of duty in 2022, which is a decrease of 61% from 2021.

The decrease “is almost entirely related to the significant reduction in COVID-19 deaths,” the report stated. The authors said the decline was likely due to “reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations.”

Reported deaths included federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Firearms-related fatalities were the second-leading cause of death among officers, with 64 in 2022. That count sustains a 21% increase seen in 2021, up from the decade-long average of 53 firearms-related deaths annually from 2010 to 2020. 

Traffic-related causes ranked third for cause of death in 2022, accounting for 56 deaths. 

“While overall line-of-duty deaths are trending down, the continuing trend of greater-than-average firearms-related deaths continues to be a serious concern,” Marcia Ferranto, the organization’s chief executive officer, said in a news release. “Using and reporting on this data allows us to highlight the continuing cost of maintaining our democracy, regrettably measured in the lives of the many law enforcement professionals who sacrifice everything fulfilling their promise to serve and protect.”

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