Nick Tate

Josh struggled for more than a decade with what his doctors had told him was irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). But curiously, the 39-year-old’s flare-ups were caused by some foods that aren’t typical IBS triggers. Peanuts and shellfish caused “stabbing” abdominal pains, and he would feel lightheaded after simply inhaling the scent of them. He also had severe constipation that lasted up to a week and rectal mucous discharges.

So, Josh (not his real name) sought the care of New York gastroenterologist Yevgenia Pashinsky, MD. She conducted a comprehensive nutritional assessment and sent him for allergy testing. The results: Josh had a little-known condition called systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS), which can mimic some of the symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Pashinsky, of the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a partner with New York Gastroenterology Associates, presented Josh’s case as part of a seminar on SNAS and IBS “mimickers” at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo in Orlando last October, sponsored by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

She and two registered dietitians in her practice, Suzie Finkel, MS, RD, CDN, and Tamara Duker Freuman, MS, RD, CDN, told seminar attendees that SNAS is rarely diagnosed and can be mistaken for IBS. They noted that it probably strikes more people than doctors suspect.

“Systemic nickel allergy is present in at least 10% of the U.S. population (and much higher in some subgroups),” Dr. Pashinsky told this news organization. “But its connection to GI symptoms and functional GI disorders is still being learned about.

“I think of nickel allergy and other allergic disorders when, in addition to GI symptoms, the patient reports skin and mucous membrane involvement along with their abdominal reactions,” she said.

For patients like Josh with SNAS, the diagnosis and treatment of this condition are surprisingly simple and effective.

“Josh had these really [unusual] symptoms and nontraditional IBS food triggers,” Ms. Finkel said in an interview. “So, that’s a situation where, as dietitians we say, ‘Hmm, that’s weird; if you have IBS, then peanuts and shrimp shouldn’t really cause an issue here.’ But this might be something physicians might not be attuned to because it’s not part of their training.”

Ms. Finkel said that Josh was referred to an allergist. Josh tested positive for skin sensitization to nickel, and he was started on a low-nickel diet, which improved his symptoms.

“So, that was this happy ending,” she added.

The upshot?

“Doctors who treat IBS patients [who are not responding to treatment] need to consider the possibility that they have SNAS and send them for allergy testing,” Ms. Finkel said. “If they come back positive, simple dietary changes can address it.”
 

An underrecognized condition

There has been very little research regarding SNAS in patients with IBS, and there are no standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it.

What’s more, many gastroenterologists aren’t familiar with it. More than a dozen gastroenterologists who were contacted for comment declined to be interviewed because they didn’t know about SNAS – or enough about it to provide useful information for the story.

Ms. Finkel said she’s not surprised that many gastroenterologists don’t know much about how SNAS can mimic IBS, which is why she and her colleagues presented the seminar last October in Orlando. “It’s really an allergy and not a GI disease. It manifests with GI symptoms, but the root is not in the digestive tract; the root is in a true allergy – a clinical allergy – to nickel.”

Complicating the issue is that people who have IBS and those with SNAS typically share some common symptoms.

Like IBS, SNAS can cause GI symptoms – such as cramping, abdominal pain, heartburn, constipation, gaseous distension, and mucus in the stool. It can be triggered by certain fresh, cooked, and canned foods.

But the food triggers that cause SNAS are not usually those that cause IBS symptoms. Rather, SNAS flare-ups are nearly always triggered by foods with high levels of nickel. Examples include apricots, artichokes, asparagus, beans, cauliflower, chickpeas, cocoa/chocolate, figs, lentils, licorice, oats, onions, peas, peanuts, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, and tea.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, a distinguishing feature of SNAS is that it can cause allergic contact dermatitis when a person touches something made with nickel. Coins, jewelry, eyeglasses, home fixtures, keys, zippers, dental devices, and even stainless-steel cookware can contain allergy-triggering nickel.

What Ms. Finkel sees the most are skin reactions from touching a surface containing nickel or from ingesting it, she said.

The other immediate symptom is abdominal pain or changes in bowel movements, such as diarrhea, she added.

Christopher Randolph, MD, an allergist based in Connecticut, told this news organization that it’s important for doctors to realize that patients who have a skin reaction to nickel may also have inflammatory GI symptoms.

“We definitely need more controlled studies,” said Dr. Randolph, of the department of allergy and immunology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “But the takeaway here is for patients and certainly providers to be mindful that you can have systemic reactions to nickel, even though you implicate only the contact dermatitis.”
 

Diagnosis and treatment recommendations

Skin patch allergy testing – in which a person’s skin is exposed to nickel – can quickly determine whether a patient with IBS is actually experiencing inflammatory reactions to dietary nickel and would benefit from a low-nickel or no-nickel diet, research shows.

For these patients, Dr. Pashinsky recommends the following:

• Avoiding high-nickel foods.
• Limiting canned foods.
• Using nonstainless cookware, especially for acidic foods.
• Boiling foods for potential nickel reduction, especially grains and vegetables.
• Running the tap before using water to drink or cook with first thing in the morning.

Dr. Pashisky and her team also recommend the following guidelines for doctors:

• Ask patients if symptoms occur immediately after eating certain high-nickel foods or worsen with a low-FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet.
• Determine whether a patient is not responding to typical medical and dietary interventions used to treat IBS.
• Conduct a food/symptom history to identify potential nickel allergy triggers.
• Try a low-nickel dietary intervention to see whether a patient’s symptoms improve in a week or two.
• Refer the patient for additional diagnostic skin-patch testing or treatment.

A multidisciplinary approach

Ms. Finkel said it’s important for doctors, particularly gastroenterologists who treat patients for suspected GI disorders to consider nickel allergy as a cause.

“SNAS is this overlooked condition ... and the research is really in its nascency here,” Ms. Finkel said.

“I would say only give [a low- or no-nickel diet] consideration if the high-nickel foods are a possible trigger,” she said. “It is very specific, looking at their diet history, to have a clear hypothesis based on what their triggers are. It’s not something to try out lightly because it’s a very restrictive diet, so I would never put a patient on a diet that I didn’t think was necessary.”

Ms. Finkel added that treatment of SNAS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a gastroenterologist, an allergist, and a dietitian.

Doctors and dietitians have distinct roles in identifying and treating these patients, Ms. Finkel said.

“If there is a suspicion of IBS symptoms and the patient is not responding to first-line treatments, then it is worth having the input of a dietitian and an allergist,” she said.

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

Josh struggled for more than a decade with what his doctors had told him was irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). But curiously, the 39-year-old’s flare-ups were caused by some foods that aren’t typical IBS triggers. Peanuts and shellfish caused “stabbing” abdominal pains, and he would feel lightheaded after simply inhaling the scent of them. He also had severe constipation that lasted up to a week and rectal mucous discharges.

So, Josh (not his real name) sought the care of New York gastroenterologist Yevgenia Pashinsky, MD. She conducted a comprehensive nutritional assessment and sent him for allergy testing. The results: Josh had a little-known condition called systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS), which can mimic some of the symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Pashinsky, of the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a partner with New York Gastroenterology Associates, presented Josh’s case as part of a seminar on SNAS and IBS “mimickers” at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo in Orlando last October, sponsored by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

She and two registered dietitians in her practice, Suzie Finkel, MS, RD, CDN, and Tamara Duker Freuman, MS, RD, CDN, told seminar attendees that SNAS is rarely diagnosed and can be mistaken for IBS. They noted that it probably strikes more people than doctors suspect.

“Systemic nickel allergy is present in at least 10% of the U.S. population (and much higher in some subgroups),” Dr. Pashinsky told this news organization. “But its connection to GI symptoms and functional GI disorders is still being learned about.

“I think of nickel allergy and other allergic disorders when, in addition to GI symptoms, the patient reports skin and mucous membrane involvement along with their abdominal reactions,” she said.

For patients like Josh with SNAS, the diagnosis and treatment of this condition are surprisingly simple and effective.

“Josh had these really [unusual] symptoms and nontraditional IBS food triggers,” Ms. Finkel said in an interview. “So, that’s a situation where, as dietitians we say, ‘Hmm, that’s weird; if you have IBS, then peanuts and shrimp shouldn’t really cause an issue here.’ But this might be something physicians might not be attuned to because it’s not part of their training.”

Ms. Finkel said that Josh was referred to an allergist. Josh tested positive for skin sensitization to nickel, and he was started on a low-nickel diet, which improved his symptoms.

“So, that was this happy ending,” she added.

The upshot?

“Doctors who treat IBS patients [who are not responding to treatment] need to consider the possibility that they have SNAS and send them for allergy testing,” Ms. Finkel said. “If they come back positive, simple dietary changes can address it.”
 

An underrecognized condition

There has been very little research regarding SNAS in patients with IBS, and there are no standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it.

What’s more, many gastroenterologists aren’t familiar with it. More than a dozen gastroenterologists who were contacted for comment declined to be interviewed because they didn’t know about SNAS – or enough about it to provide useful information for the story.

Ms. Finkel said she’s not surprised that many gastroenterologists don’t know much about how SNAS can mimic IBS, which is why she and her colleagues presented the seminar last October in Orlando. “It’s really an allergy and not a GI disease. It manifests with GI symptoms, but the root is not in the digestive tract; the root is in a true allergy – a clinical allergy – to nickel.”

Complicating the issue is that people who have IBS and those with SNAS typically share some common symptoms.

Like IBS, SNAS can cause GI symptoms – such as cramping, abdominal pain, heartburn, constipation, gaseous distension, and mucus in the stool. It can be triggered by certain fresh, cooked, and canned foods.

But the food triggers that cause SNAS are not usually those that cause IBS symptoms. Rather, SNAS flare-ups are nearly always triggered by foods with high levels of nickel. Examples include apricots, artichokes, asparagus, beans, cauliflower, chickpeas, cocoa/chocolate, figs, lentils, licorice, oats, onions, peas, peanuts, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, and tea.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, a distinguishing feature of SNAS is that it can cause allergic contact dermatitis when a person touches something made with nickel. Coins, jewelry, eyeglasses, home fixtures, keys, zippers, dental devices, and even stainless-steel cookware can contain allergy-triggering nickel.

What Ms. Finkel sees the most are skin reactions from touching a surface containing nickel or from ingesting it, she said.

The other immediate symptom is abdominal pain or changes in bowel movements, such as diarrhea, she added.

Christopher Randolph, MD, an allergist based in Connecticut, told this news organization that it’s important for doctors to realize that patients who have a skin reaction to nickel may also have inflammatory GI symptoms.

“We definitely need more controlled studies,” said Dr. Randolph, of the department of allergy and immunology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “But the takeaway here is for patients and certainly providers to be mindful that you can have systemic reactions to nickel, even though you implicate only the contact dermatitis.”
 

Diagnosis and treatment recommendations

Skin patch allergy testing – in which a person’s skin is exposed to nickel – can quickly determine whether a patient with IBS is actually experiencing inflammatory reactions to dietary nickel and would benefit from a low-nickel or no-nickel diet, research shows.

For these patients, Dr. Pashinsky recommends the following:

• Avoiding high-nickel foods.
• Limiting canned foods.
• Using nonstainless cookware, especially for acidic foods.
• Boiling foods for potential nickel reduction, especially grains and vegetables.
• Running the tap before using water to drink or cook with first thing in the morning.

Dr. Pashisky and her team also recommend the following guidelines for doctors:

• Ask patients if symptoms occur immediately after eating certain high-nickel foods or worsen with a low-FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet.
• Determine whether a patient is not responding to typical medical and dietary interventions used to treat IBS.
• Conduct a food/symptom history to identify potential nickel allergy triggers.
• Try a low-nickel dietary intervention to see whether a patient’s symptoms improve in a week or two.
• Refer the patient for additional diagnostic skin-patch testing or treatment.

A multidisciplinary approach

Ms. Finkel said it’s important for doctors, particularly gastroenterologists who treat patients for suspected GI disorders to consider nickel allergy as a cause.

“SNAS is this overlooked condition ... and the research is really in its nascency here,” Ms. Finkel said.

“I would say only give [a low- or no-nickel diet] consideration if the high-nickel foods are a possible trigger,” she said. “It is very specific, looking at their diet history, to have a clear hypothesis based on what their triggers are. It’s not something to try out lightly because it’s a very restrictive diet, so I would never put a patient on a diet that I didn’t think was necessary.”

Ms. Finkel added that treatment of SNAS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a gastroenterologist, an allergist, and a dietitian.

Doctors and dietitians have distinct roles in identifying and treating these patients, Ms. Finkel said.

“If there is a suspicion of IBS symptoms and the patient is not responding to first-line treatments, then it is worth having the input of a dietitian and an allergist,” she said.

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

Josh struggled for more than a decade with what his doctors had told him was irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). But curiously, the 39-year-old’s flare-ups were caused by some foods that aren’t typical IBS triggers. Peanuts and shellfish caused “stabbing” abdominal pains, and he would feel lightheaded after simply inhaling the scent of them. He also had severe constipation that lasted up to a week and rectal mucous discharges.

So, Josh (not his real name) sought the care of New York gastroenterologist Yevgenia Pashinsky, MD. She conducted a comprehensive nutritional assessment and sent him for allergy testing. The results: Josh had a little-known condition called systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS), which can mimic some of the symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Pashinsky, of the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a partner with New York Gastroenterology Associates, presented Josh’s case as part of a seminar on SNAS and IBS “mimickers” at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo in Orlando last October, sponsored by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

She and two registered dietitians in her practice, Suzie Finkel, MS, RD, CDN, and Tamara Duker Freuman, MS, RD, CDN, told seminar attendees that SNAS is rarely diagnosed and can be mistaken for IBS. They noted that it probably strikes more people than doctors suspect.

“Systemic nickel allergy is present in at least 10% of the U.S. population (and much higher in some subgroups),” Dr. Pashinsky told this news organization. “But its connection to GI symptoms and functional GI disorders is still being learned about.

“I think of nickel allergy and other allergic disorders when, in addition to GI symptoms, the patient reports skin and mucous membrane involvement along with their abdominal reactions,” she said.

For patients like Josh with SNAS, the diagnosis and treatment of this condition are surprisingly simple and effective.

“Josh had these really [unusual] symptoms and nontraditional IBS food triggers,” Ms. Finkel said in an interview. “So, that’s a situation where, as dietitians we say, ‘Hmm, that’s weird; if you have IBS, then peanuts and shrimp shouldn’t really cause an issue here.’ But this might be something physicians might not be attuned to because it’s not part of their training.”

Ms. Finkel said that Josh was referred to an allergist. Josh tested positive for skin sensitization to nickel, and he was started on a low-nickel diet, which improved his symptoms.

“So, that was this happy ending,” she added.

The upshot?

“Doctors who treat IBS patients [who are not responding to treatment] need to consider the possibility that they have SNAS and send them for allergy testing,” Ms. Finkel said. “If they come back positive, simple dietary changes can address it.”
 

An underrecognized condition

There has been very little research regarding SNAS in patients with IBS, and there are no standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it.

What’s more, many gastroenterologists aren’t familiar with it. More than a dozen gastroenterologists who were contacted for comment declined to be interviewed because they didn’t know about SNAS – or enough about it to provide useful information for the story.

Ms. Finkel said she’s not surprised that many gastroenterologists don’t know much about how SNAS can mimic IBS, which is why she and her colleagues presented the seminar last October in Orlando. “It’s really an allergy and not a GI disease. It manifests with GI symptoms, but the root is not in the digestive tract; the root is in a true allergy – a clinical allergy – to nickel.”

Complicating the issue is that people who have IBS and those with SNAS typically share some common symptoms.

Like IBS, SNAS can cause GI symptoms – such as cramping, abdominal pain, heartburn, constipation, gaseous distension, and mucus in the stool. It can be triggered by certain fresh, cooked, and canned foods.

But the food triggers that cause SNAS are not usually those that cause IBS symptoms. Rather, SNAS flare-ups are nearly always triggered by foods with high levels of nickel. Examples include apricots, artichokes, asparagus, beans, cauliflower, chickpeas, cocoa/chocolate, figs, lentils, licorice, oats, onions, peas, peanuts, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, and tea.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, a distinguishing feature of SNAS is that it can cause allergic contact dermatitis when a person touches something made with nickel. Coins, jewelry, eyeglasses, home fixtures, keys, zippers, dental devices, and even stainless-steel cookware can contain allergy-triggering nickel.

What Ms. Finkel sees the most are skin reactions from touching a surface containing nickel or from ingesting it, she said.

The other immediate symptom is abdominal pain or changes in bowel movements, such as diarrhea, she added.

Christopher Randolph, MD, an allergist based in Connecticut, told this news organization that it’s important for doctors to realize that patients who have a skin reaction to nickel may also have inflammatory GI symptoms.

“We definitely need more controlled studies,” said Dr. Randolph, of the department of allergy and immunology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “But the takeaway here is for patients and certainly providers to be mindful that you can have systemic reactions to nickel, even though you implicate only the contact dermatitis.”
 

Diagnosis and treatment recommendations

Skin patch allergy testing – in which a person’s skin is exposed to nickel – can quickly determine whether a patient with IBS is actually experiencing inflammatory reactions to dietary nickel and would benefit from a low-nickel or no-nickel diet, research shows.

For these patients, Dr. Pashinsky recommends the following:

• Avoiding high-nickel foods.
• Limiting canned foods.
• Using nonstainless cookware, especially for acidic foods.
• Boiling foods for potential nickel reduction, especially grains and vegetables.
• Running the tap before using water to drink or cook with first thing in the morning.

Dr. Pashisky and her team also recommend the following guidelines for doctors:

• Ask patients if symptoms occur immediately after eating certain high-nickel foods or worsen with a low-FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet.
• Determine whether a patient is not responding to typical medical and dietary interventions used to treat IBS.
• Conduct a food/symptom history to identify potential nickel allergy triggers.
• Try a low-nickel dietary intervention to see whether a patient’s symptoms improve in a week or two.
• Refer the patient for additional diagnostic skin-patch testing or treatment.

A multidisciplinary approach

Ms. Finkel said it’s important for doctors, particularly gastroenterologists who treat patients for suspected GI disorders to consider nickel allergy as a cause.

“SNAS is this overlooked condition ... and the research is really in its nascency here,” Ms. Finkel said.

“I would say only give [a low- or no-nickel diet] consideration if the high-nickel foods are a possible trigger,” she said. “It is very specific, looking at their diet history, to have a clear hypothesis based on what their triggers are. It’s not something to try out lightly because it’s a very restrictive diet, so I would never put a patient on a diet that I didn’t think was necessary.”

Ms. Finkel added that treatment of SNAS requires a multidisciplinary approach with a gastroenterologist, an allergist, and a dietitian.

Doctors and dietitians have distinct roles in identifying and treating these patients, Ms. Finkel said.

“If there is a suspicion of IBS symptoms and the patient is not responding to first-line treatments, then it is worth having the input of a dietitian and an allergist,” she said.

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

New COVID boosters that target the fast-spreading Omicron strains of the virus are rolling out this week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending these bivalent mRNA shots for Americans 12 and older.

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about the shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, based on information provided by the CDC and Keri Althoff, PhD, and virologist Andrew Pekosz, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health epidemiologists.

Question: Who is eligible for the new bivalent boosters?

Answer: The CDC greenlighted the upgraded Pfizer/BioNTech shots for Americans 12 and older and the Moderna booster for those 18 and over, if they have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before.

The boosters have been redesigned to protect against the predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the virus. The Biden administration is making 160 million of the booster shots available free of charge through pharmacies, doctor’s offices, clinics, and state health departments.

Q: What about children under 12?

A: The new boosters are not approved for children under 12. Additional testing and trials need to be conducted for safety and effectiveness. But officials recommend that children 5 and above receive the primary vaccine series and be boosted with one shot. Children 6 months to under 5 years are not yet eligible for boosters.

Pfizer said it hopes to ask the Food and Drug Administration for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds in October.

Q: How do the new bivalent boosters differ from previous shots?

A: The new shots use the same mRNA technology as the prior Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines and boosters but have been upgraded to target the newer Omicron strains. The shots use mRNA created in a lab to teach our cells to produce a specific protein that triggers an immune-system response and make antibodies that help protect us from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The recipe for the new shots incorporates the so-called “spike protein” of both the original (ancestral) strain of the virus and more highly transmissible Omicron strains (BA.4, BA.5). Once your body produces these proteins, your immune system kicks into gear to mount a response.

It’s also possible – but yet to be determined – that the new bivalent boosters will offer protection against newer but less common strains known as BA.4.6 and BA.2.75.

Q: Are there any new risks or side effects associated with these boosters?

A: Health experts don’t expect to see anything beyond what has already been noted with prior mRNA vaccines, with the vast majority of recipients experiencing only mild issues such as redness from the shot, soreness, and fatigue.

Q: Do I need one of the new shots if I’ve already had past boosters or had COVID?

A: Yes. Even if you’ve been infected with COVID in the past year and/or received the prior series of primary vaccines and boosters, you should get a bivalent Omicron shot.

Doing so will give you broader immunity against COVID and also help limit the emergence of other variants. The more Americans with high immunity, the better; it makes it less likely other variants will emerge that can escape the immunity provided by vaccines and COVID infections.

Q: How long should I wait, from the time of my last shot, before getting a new booster?

A: The bivalent boosters are most effective when given after a period of time has passed between your last shot and the new one. A 2- to 3-month waiting period is the minimum, but some evidence suggests extending it out to 4-6 months might be good timing.

To determine when you should get a new booster, check out the CDC’s Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters website.

Q: What if I’ve recently had COVID?

A: There are no specific rules about a waiting period after COVID infection. But if you have been infected with the virus in the last 8 weeks, you may want to wait for 8 weeks to pass before receiving the bivalent booster to allow your immune system to get greater benefit from the shot.

Q: If I never got the original vaccines, do I need to get those shots first?

A: Yes. The bivalent vaccine has a lower dose of mRNA than the vaccines used in the primary series of vaccines, rolled out in late 2020. The bivalent vaccine is authorized for use as a booster dose and not a primary vaccine series dose.

Q: Do the Omicron-specific boosters entirely replace the other boosters?

A: Yes. The new booster shots, which target the original strain and the Omicron subvariants, are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. The FDA no longer authorizes the previous booster doses for people in the approved age groups.

Q: What if I received a non-mRNA vaccine produced by Novavax or Johnson & Johnson? Should I still get an mRNA booster?

A: You can mix and match COVID vaccines, and you are eligible to get the bivalent booster 8 weeks after completing the primary COVID vaccination series – whether that was two doses of mRNA or Novavax, or one shot of J&J.

Q: How effective are the new boosters?

A: Scientists don’t have complete effectiveness data from the bivalent vaccines yet. But because the new boosters contain mRNA from the Omicron and the original strains, they are believed to offer greater protection against COVID overall.

Cellular-level data support this, with studies showing the bivalent vaccines increase neutralizing antibodies to BA.4/BA.5 strains. Scientists regard these kinds of studies as surrogate stand-ins for clinical trials. But officials will be studying the effectiveness of the new boosters, examining to what degree they reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Q: How long will the boosters’ protection last?

A: Research shows that vaccine effectiveness eventually wanes, which is why we have the boosters. Scientists will be monitoring to see how long the protection lasts from the bivalent boosters through studies of antibody levels as well as assessments of severe COVID illnesses over time, throughout the fall and winter.

Q: Is it OK to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time?

A: Yes. In fact, it’s important to get a flu shot this year because some experts believe we could see overlapping COVID-influenza surges this fall – a phenomenon some have fancifully called a “twindemic.” Getting a flu shot and COVID booster – simultaneously, if possible – is particularly important if you’re in a high-risk group.

People who are susceptible to severe complications from COVID – such as older people, people with weakened immune systems, and those with chronic health conditions – are also especially vulnerable to severe influenza complications.

Q: Will a new booster mean I can stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID?

A: No. It’s still a good idea to mask up, keep your distance from others, avoid indoor spaces with people whose vaccine status is unknown, and take other precautions against COVID.

Although the new boosters are front of mind, it’s a good idea to also use other tools in the toolbox, as well, particularly if you have contact with someone who is older, immune-suppressed, or has a chronic condition that puts them at higher risk from COVID.

Keep in mind: The community risk of infection nationwide is still high today, with about 67,400 new cases and nearly 320 deaths reported each day in the United States, according to the latest CDC reports.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

New COVID boosters that target the fast-spreading Omicron strains of the virus are rolling out this week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending these bivalent mRNA shots for Americans 12 and older.

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about the shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, based on information provided by the CDC and Keri Althoff, PhD, and virologist Andrew Pekosz, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health epidemiologists.

Question: Who is eligible for the new bivalent boosters?

Answer: The CDC greenlighted the upgraded Pfizer/BioNTech shots for Americans 12 and older and the Moderna booster for those 18 and over, if they have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before.

The boosters have been redesigned to protect against the predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the virus. The Biden administration is making 160 million of the booster shots available free of charge through pharmacies, doctor’s offices, clinics, and state health departments.

Q: What about children under 12?

A: The new boosters are not approved for children under 12. Additional testing and trials need to be conducted for safety and effectiveness. But officials recommend that children 5 and above receive the primary vaccine series and be boosted with one shot. Children 6 months to under 5 years are not yet eligible for boosters.

Pfizer said it hopes to ask the Food and Drug Administration for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds in October.

Q: How do the new bivalent boosters differ from previous shots?

A: The new shots use the same mRNA technology as the prior Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines and boosters but have been upgraded to target the newer Omicron strains. The shots use mRNA created in a lab to teach our cells to produce a specific protein that triggers an immune-system response and make antibodies that help protect us from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The recipe for the new shots incorporates the so-called “spike protein” of both the original (ancestral) strain of the virus and more highly transmissible Omicron strains (BA.4, BA.5). Once your body produces these proteins, your immune system kicks into gear to mount a response.

It’s also possible – but yet to be determined – that the new bivalent boosters will offer protection against newer but less common strains known as BA.4.6 and BA.2.75.

Q: Are there any new risks or side effects associated with these boosters?

A: Health experts don’t expect to see anything beyond what has already been noted with prior mRNA vaccines, with the vast majority of recipients experiencing only mild issues such as redness from the shot, soreness, and fatigue.

Q: Do I need one of the new shots if I’ve already had past boosters or had COVID?

A: Yes. Even if you’ve been infected with COVID in the past year and/or received the prior series of primary vaccines and boosters, you should get a bivalent Omicron shot.

Doing so will give you broader immunity against COVID and also help limit the emergence of other variants. The more Americans with high immunity, the better; it makes it less likely other variants will emerge that can escape the immunity provided by vaccines and COVID infections.

Q: How long should I wait, from the time of my last shot, before getting a new booster?

A: The bivalent boosters are most effective when given after a period of time has passed between your last shot and the new one. A 2- to 3-month waiting period is the minimum, but some evidence suggests extending it out to 4-6 months might be good timing.

To determine when you should get a new booster, check out the CDC’s Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters website.

Q: What if I’ve recently had COVID?

A: There are no specific rules about a waiting period after COVID infection. But if you have been infected with the virus in the last 8 weeks, you may want to wait for 8 weeks to pass before receiving the bivalent booster to allow your immune system to get greater benefit from the shot.

Q: If I never got the original vaccines, do I need to get those shots first?

A: Yes. The bivalent vaccine has a lower dose of mRNA than the vaccines used in the primary series of vaccines, rolled out in late 2020. The bivalent vaccine is authorized for use as a booster dose and not a primary vaccine series dose.

Q: Do the Omicron-specific boosters entirely replace the other boosters?

A: Yes. The new booster shots, which target the original strain and the Omicron subvariants, are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. The FDA no longer authorizes the previous booster doses for people in the approved age groups.

Q: What if I received a non-mRNA vaccine produced by Novavax or Johnson & Johnson? Should I still get an mRNA booster?

A: You can mix and match COVID vaccines, and you are eligible to get the bivalent booster 8 weeks after completing the primary COVID vaccination series – whether that was two doses of mRNA or Novavax, or one shot of J&J.

Q: How effective are the new boosters?

A: Scientists don’t have complete effectiveness data from the bivalent vaccines yet. But because the new boosters contain mRNA from the Omicron and the original strains, they are believed to offer greater protection against COVID overall.

Cellular-level data support this, with studies showing the bivalent vaccines increase neutralizing antibodies to BA.4/BA.5 strains. Scientists regard these kinds of studies as surrogate stand-ins for clinical trials. But officials will be studying the effectiveness of the new boosters, examining to what degree they reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Q: How long will the boosters’ protection last?

A: Research shows that vaccine effectiveness eventually wanes, which is why we have the boosters. Scientists will be monitoring to see how long the protection lasts from the bivalent boosters through studies of antibody levels as well as assessments of severe COVID illnesses over time, throughout the fall and winter.

Q: Is it OK to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time?

A: Yes. In fact, it’s important to get a flu shot this year because some experts believe we could see overlapping COVID-influenza surges this fall – a phenomenon some have fancifully called a “twindemic.” Getting a flu shot and COVID booster – simultaneously, if possible – is particularly important if you’re in a high-risk group.

People who are susceptible to severe complications from COVID – such as older people, people with weakened immune systems, and those with chronic health conditions – are also especially vulnerable to severe influenza complications.

Q: Will a new booster mean I can stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID?

A: No. It’s still a good idea to mask up, keep your distance from others, avoid indoor spaces with people whose vaccine status is unknown, and take other precautions against COVID.

Although the new boosters are front of mind, it’s a good idea to also use other tools in the toolbox, as well, particularly if you have contact with someone who is older, immune-suppressed, or has a chronic condition that puts them at higher risk from COVID.

Keep in mind: The community risk of infection nationwide is still high today, with about 67,400 new cases and nearly 320 deaths reported each day in the United States, according to the latest CDC reports.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

New COVID boosters that target the fast-spreading Omicron strains of the virus are rolling out this week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending these bivalent mRNA shots for Americans 12 and older.

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about the shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, based on information provided by the CDC and Keri Althoff, PhD, and virologist Andrew Pekosz, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health epidemiologists.

Question: Who is eligible for the new bivalent boosters?

Answer: The CDC greenlighted the upgraded Pfizer/BioNTech shots for Americans 12 and older and the Moderna booster for those 18 and over, if they have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before.

The boosters have been redesigned to protect against the predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the virus. The Biden administration is making 160 million of the booster shots available free of charge through pharmacies, doctor’s offices, clinics, and state health departments.

Q: What about children under 12?

A: The new boosters are not approved for children under 12. Additional testing and trials need to be conducted for safety and effectiveness. But officials recommend that children 5 and above receive the primary vaccine series and be boosted with one shot. Children 6 months to under 5 years are not yet eligible for boosters.

Pfizer said it hopes to ask the Food and Drug Administration for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds in October.

Q: How do the new bivalent boosters differ from previous shots?

A: The new shots use the same mRNA technology as the prior Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines and boosters but have been upgraded to target the newer Omicron strains. The shots use mRNA created in a lab to teach our cells to produce a specific protein that triggers an immune-system response and make antibodies that help protect us from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The recipe for the new shots incorporates the so-called “spike protein” of both the original (ancestral) strain of the virus and more highly transmissible Omicron strains (BA.4, BA.5). Once your body produces these proteins, your immune system kicks into gear to mount a response.

It’s also possible – but yet to be determined – that the new bivalent boosters will offer protection against newer but less common strains known as BA.4.6 and BA.2.75.

Q: Are there any new risks or side effects associated with these boosters?

A: Health experts don’t expect to see anything beyond what has already been noted with prior mRNA vaccines, with the vast majority of recipients experiencing only mild issues such as redness from the shot, soreness, and fatigue.

Q: Do I need one of the new shots if I’ve already had past boosters or had COVID?

A: Yes. Even if you’ve been infected with COVID in the past year and/or received the prior series of primary vaccines and boosters, you should get a bivalent Omicron shot.

Doing so will give you broader immunity against COVID and also help limit the emergence of other variants. The more Americans with high immunity, the better; it makes it less likely other variants will emerge that can escape the immunity provided by vaccines and COVID infections.

Q: How long should I wait, from the time of my last shot, before getting a new booster?

A: The bivalent boosters are most effective when given after a period of time has passed between your last shot and the new one. A 2- to 3-month waiting period is the minimum, but some evidence suggests extending it out to 4-6 months might be good timing.

To determine when you should get a new booster, check out the CDC’s Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters website.

Q: What if I’ve recently had COVID?

A: There are no specific rules about a waiting period after COVID infection. But if you have been infected with the virus in the last 8 weeks, you may want to wait for 8 weeks to pass before receiving the bivalent booster to allow your immune system to get greater benefit from the shot.

Q: If I never got the original vaccines, do I need to get those shots first?

A: Yes. The bivalent vaccine has a lower dose of mRNA than the vaccines used in the primary series of vaccines, rolled out in late 2020. The bivalent vaccine is authorized for use as a booster dose and not a primary vaccine series dose.

Q: Do the Omicron-specific boosters entirely replace the other boosters?

A: Yes. The new booster shots, which target the original strain and the Omicron subvariants, are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. The FDA no longer authorizes the previous booster doses for people in the approved age groups.

Q: What if I received a non-mRNA vaccine produced by Novavax or Johnson & Johnson? Should I still get an mRNA booster?

A: You can mix and match COVID vaccines, and you are eligible to get the bivalent booster 8 weeks after completing the primary COVID vaccination series – whether that was two doses of mRNA or Novavax, or one shot of J&J.

Q: How effective are the new boosters?

A: Scientists don’t have complete effectiveness data from the bivalent vaccines yet. But because the new boosters contain mRNA from the Omicron and the original strains, they are believed to offer greater protection against COVID overall.

Cellular-level data support this, with studies showing the bivalent vaccines increase neutralizing antibodies to BA.4/BA.5 strains. Scientists regard these kinds of studies as surrogate stand-ins for clinical trials. But officials will be studying the effectiveness of the new boosters, examining to what degree they reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Q: How long will the boosters’ protection last?

A: Research shows that vaccine effectiveness eventually wanes, which is why we have the boosters. Scientists will be monitoring to see how long the protection lasts from the bivalent boosters through studies of antibody levels as well as assessments of severe COVID illnesses over time, throughout the fall and winter.

Q: Is it OK to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time?

A: Yes. In fact, it’s important to get a flu shot this year because some experts believe we could see overlapping COVID-influenza surges this fall – a phenomenon some have fancifully called a “twindemic.” Getting a flu shot and COVID booster – simultaneously, if possible – is particularly important if you’re in a high-risk group.

People who are susceptible to severe complications from COVID – such as older people, people with weakened immune systems, and those with chronic health conditions – are also especially vulnerable to severe influenza complications.

Q: Will a new booster mean I can stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID?

A: No. It’s still a good idea to mask up, keep your distance from others, avoid indoor spaces with people whose vaccine status is unknown, and take other precautions against COVID.

Although the new boosters are front of mind, it’s a good idea to also use other tools in the toolbox, as well, particularly if you have contact with someone who is older, immune-suppressed, or has a chronic condition that puts them at higher risk from COVID.

Keep in mind: The community risk of infection nationwide is still high today, with about 67,400 new cases and nearly 320 deaths reported each day in the United States, according to the latest CDC reports.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

We all have friends or relatives who, somehow, have managed to avoid catching COVID-19, which has infected more than 91.5 million Americans. You may even be one of the lucky ones yourself.

But health experts are saying: Not so fast. A mounting pile of scientific evidence suggests millions of Americans have been infected with the virus without ever even knowing it because they didn’t have symptoms or had mild cases they mistook for a cold or allergies.

The upshot: These silent COVID-19 cases reflect a hidden side of the pandemic that may be helping to drive new surges and viral variants.

Still, infectious disease experts say there is little doubt that some people have indeed managed to avoid COVID-19 infection altogether, and they are trying to understand why.

Several recent studies have suggested certain genetic and immune system traits may better protect this group of people against the coronavirus, making them less likely than others to be infected or seriously sickened. Researchers around the world are now studying these seemingly super-immune people for clues to what makes them so special, with an eye toward better vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.

Infectious disease specialists say both types of cases – those unknowingly infected by COVID-19 and people who’ve avoided the virus altogether – matter greatly to public health, more than 2 years into the pandemic.

“It’s definitely true that some people have had COVID and don’t realize it,” says Stephen Kissler, PhD, an infectious disease researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “It is potentially good news if there’s more immunity in the population than we realize.”

But he says that being able to identify genetic and other factors that may offer some people protection against COVID-19 is an “exciting prospect” that could help find out who’s most at risk and improve efforts to get the pandemic under control.

Some studies have found a person’s genetic profile, past exposure to other COVID-like viruses, allergies, and even drugs they take for other conditions may all provide some defense – even for people who have not been vaccinated, don’t use masks, or don’t practice social distancing.

A person’s medical history and genetics may help decide their risk from new diseases, meaning “we may be able to help identify people who are at especially high risk from infection,” Dr. Kissler says. “That knowledge could help those people better shield themselves from infection and get quicker access to treatment and vaccines, if necessary. … We don’t yet know, but studies are ongoing for these things.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, agrees that emerging research on people who’ve avoided infection offers the chance of new public health strategies to combat COVID-19.

“I’m sure there is some subset of people who are [COVID] negative,” he says. “So what explains that phenomenon, especially if that person was out there getting significant exposures?”
 

Have you had COVID without knowing it?

In a media briefing late last month, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, said more than 70% of the U.S. population has had the virus, according to the latest CDC data. That’s up from 33.5% in December.

But the actual number of people in the U.S. who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19, is likely to be much higher due to cases without symptoms that are unreported, experts say.

Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have tried to put a number on these hidden cases, but that figure has been evolving and a clear consensus has not emerged.

In September 2020, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine said “approximately 40% to 45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic.”

A follow-up analysis of 95 studies, published last December, reached similar findings, estimating that more than 40% of COVID-19 infections didn’t come with symptoms.

To get a better handle on the issue, CDC officials have been working with the American Red Cross and other blood banks to track COVID-19 antibodies – proteins your body makes after exposure to the virus to fight off an infection – in donors who said they have never had COVID-19.

While that joint effort is still ongoing, early findings say the number of donors with antibodies from COVID-19 infection increased in blood donors from 3.5% in July 2020 to at least 20.2% in May 2021. Since then, those percentages have soared, in part due to the introduction of vaccines, which also make the body produce COVID-19 antibodies.

The most current findings show that 83.3% of donors have combined COVID infection– and vaccine-induced antibodies in their blood. Those findings are based on 1.4 million blood donations.

Health experts say all of these studies are strong evidence that many COVID-19 cases continue to go undetected. In fact, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that only 7% of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are being detected. That means case rates are actually 14.5 times higher than the official count of 131,000 new COVID infections each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports the virus is still killing about 440 Americans daily.

So, why is all this important, in terms of public health?

Experts say people are more likely to be cautious if they know COVID-19 cases are high where they live, work, and play. On the other hand, if they believe case rates in their communities are lower than they actually are, they may be less likely to get vaccinated and boosted, wear masks indoors, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and take other precautions to fend off infection.
 

How do some avoid infection altogether?

In addition to tracking cases that go unreported and don’t have symptoms, infectious disease experts have also been trying to figure out why some people have managed to avoid getting the highly contagious virus.

Several leading lines of research have produced promising early results – suggesting that a person’s genetic makeup, past exposure to less-lethal coronaviruses, allergies, and even certain drugs they take for other conditions may all provide at least some protection against COVID.

“Our study showed that there are many human genes – hundreds of genes – that can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection,” says Neville Sanjana, PhD, a geneticist at New York University and the New York Genome Center who co-led the study. “With a better understanding of host genetic factors, we can find new kinds of therapies that target these host factors to block infection.”

In addition, he says several studies show some drugs that regulate genes, such as the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, also appear to knock down COVID-19 risk. He suggests such drugs, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration, might be “repurposed” to target the virus.

Studies in other countries show that patients taking tamoxifen before the pandemic were protected against severe COVID-19, Dr. Sanjana says. “That was a really cool thing, highlighting the power of harnessing host genetics. The virus critically depends on our genes to complete key parts of its life cycle.”

The NYU research findings echo other studies that have been published in recent months.

In July, a team of researchers led by the National Cancer Institute identified a genetic factor that appears to determine how severe an infection will be. In a study involving 3,000 people, they found that two gene changes, or mutations, that decrease the expression of a gene called OAS1 boosted the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. OAS1 is part of the immune system’s response to viral infections.

As a result, developing a genetic therapy designed to increase the OAS1 gene’s expression might reduce the risk of severe disease.

“It’s very natural to get infected once you are exposed. There’s no magic bullet for that. But after you get infected, how you’re going to respond to this infection, that’s what is going to be affected by your genetic variants,” said Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson, PhD, the study’s lead researcher and chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Translational Genomics, Bethesda, Md., in an interview with NBC News.

Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a New York University virologist who co-authored the 2020 research, says the new genetic research is promising, but he believes it’s unlikely scientists will be able to identify a single gene responsible for actually preventing a COVID-19 infection.

“On the flip side, we have identified many genes that makes the disease worse,” he says.
 

T cells ‘remember’ past viral infections

As Dr. tenOever and Dr. Sanjana suggest, another intriguing line of research has found that prior viral infections may prime the body’s immune system to fight COVID-19.

Four other common coronaviruses – aside from SARS-CoV-2 – infect people worldwide, typically causing mild to moderate upper respiratory illnesses like the common cold, says Alessandro Sette, PhD, an infectious disease expert and vaccine researcher with the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

In a recent study published in Science, he and his team found past infection with these other coronaviruses may give some protection against SARS-CoV-2.

T cells – white blood cells that act like immunological ninjas to ferret out and fight infections – appear to maintain a kind of “biological memory” of coronaviruses they have seen before and can mount an attack on similar pathogens, such SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Sette says.

The new work builds on a prior research he helped lead that found 40%-60% of people never exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had T cells that reacted to the virus – with their immune systems recognizing fragments of a virus they had never seen before.

Dr. Sette says his research shows that people whose T cells have this “preexisting memory” of past coronavirus exposures also tend to respond better to vaccination for reasons not yet well understood.

“The question is, at which point will there be enough immunity from vaccination, repeated infections from other coronaviruses, but also some of the variants of the SARS-CoV-2 … where infections become less frequent? We’re not there yet,” he says.

In addition to these exciting genetic and T-cell findings, other research has suggested low-grade inflammation from allergies – a key part of the body’s immune response to foreign substances – may also give some people an extra leg up, in terms of avoiding COVID infection.

Last May, a study of 1,400 households published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that having a food allergy cut the risk of COVID-19 infection in half.

The researchers said it’s unclear why allergies may reduce the risk of infection, but they noted that people with food allergies express fewer ACE2 receptors on the surface of their airway cells, making it harder for the virus to enter cells.
 

The big picture: Prevention still your best bet

So, what’s the takeaway from all of this emerging research?

New York University’s Dr. tenOever says that while genes, T cells and allergies may offer some protection against COVID, tried-and-true precautions – vaccination, wearing masks, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and social distancing – are likely to provide a greater defense.

He believes these precautions are likely why he and his family have never contracted COVID-19.

“I was tested weekly, as were my kids at school,” he says. “We definitely never got COVID, despite the fact that we live in New York City and I worked in a hospital every single day of the pandemic.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of clinical epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees that the new research on COVID-19 is intriguing but won’t likely result in practical changes in the approach to fighting the virus in the near term.

“Getting a deeper understanding of potential genetic factors or other characteristics – that could really help us understand why the virus just comes and goes without any ill effects in some people, and in other people it produces really serious disease,” he says. “That will really help us eventually to design better vaccines to prevent it or reduce severity or even [treat] people who get severe disease.”

In the meantime, Dr. Al-Aly says, “it’s still best to do everything you can to avoid infection in the first place – even if you’re vaccinated or previously infected, you should really try to avoid reinfection.”

That means sit outside if you can when visiting a restaurant. Wear a mask on a plane, even though it’s not required. And get vaccinated and boosted.

“In the future, there may be more tools to address this pandemic, but that’s really the best advice for now,” Dr. Al-Aly says.

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

We all have friends or relatives who, somehow, have managed to avoid catching COVID-19, which has infected more than 91.5 million Americans. You may even be one of the lucky ones yourself.

But health experts are saying: Not so fast. A mounting pile of scientific evidence suggests millions of Americans have been infected with the virus without ever even knowing it because they didn’t have symptoms or had mild cases they mistook for a cold or allergies.

The upshot: These silent COVID-19 cases reflect a hidden side of the pandemic that may be helping to drive new surges and viral variants.

Still, infectious disease experts say there is little doubt that some people have indeed managed to avoid COVID-19 infection altogether, and they are trying to understand why.

Several recent studies have suggested certain genetic and immune system traits may better protect this group of people against the coronavirus, making them less likely than others to be infected or seriously sickened. Researchers around the world are now studying these seemingly super-immune people for clues to what makes them so special, with an eye toward better vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.

Infectious disease specialists say both types of cases – those unknowingly infected by COVID-19 and people who’ve avoided the virus altogether – matter greatly to public health, more than 2 years into the pandemic.

“It’s definitely true that some people have had COVID and don’t realize it,” says Stephen Kissler, PhD, an infectious disease researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “It is potentially good news if there’s more immunity in the population than we realize.”

But he says that being able to identify genetic and other factors that may offer some people protection against COVID-19 is an “exciting prospect” that could help find out who’s most at risk and improve efforts to get the pandemic under control.

Some studies have found a person’s genetic profile, past exposure to other COVID-like viruses, allergies, and even drugs they take for other conditions may all provide some defense – even for people who have not been vaccinated, don’t use masks, or don’t practice social distancing.

A person’s medical history and genetics may help decide their risk from new diseases, meaning “we may be able to help identify people who are at especially high risk from infection,” Dr. Kissler says. “That knowledge could help those people better shield themselves from infection and get quicker access to treatment and vaccines, if necessary. … We don’t yet know, but studies are ongoing for these things.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, agrees that emerging research on people who’ve avoided infection offers the chance of new public health strategies to combat COVID-19.

“I’m sure there is some subset of people who are [COVID] negative,” he says. “So what explains that phenomenon, especially if that person was out there getting significant exposures?”
 

Have you had COVID without knowing it?

In a media briefing late last month, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, said more than 70% of the U.S. population has had the virus, according to the latest CDC data. That’s up from 33.5% in December.

But the actual number of people in the U.S. who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19, is likely to be much higher due to cases without symptoms that are unreported, experts say.

Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have tried to put a number on these hidden cases, but that figure has been evolving and a clear consensus has not emerged.

In September 2020, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine said “approximately 40% to 45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic.”

A follow-up analysis of 95 studies, published last December, reached similar findings, estimating that more than 40% of COVID-19 infections didn’t come with symptoms.

To get a better handle on the issue, CDC officials have been working with the American Red Cross and other blood banks to track COVID-19 antibodies – proteins your body makes after exposure to the virus to fight off an infection – in donors who said they have never had COVID-19.

While that joint effort is still ongoing, early findings say the number of donors with antibodies from COVID-19 infection increased in blood donors from 3.5% in July 2020 to at least 20.2% in May 2021. Since then, those percentages have soared, in part due to the introduction of vaccines, which also make the body produce COVID-19 antibodies.

The most current findings show that 83.3% of donors have combined COVID infection– and vaccine-induced antibodies in their blood. Those findings are based on 1.4 million blood donations.

Health experts say all of these studies are strong evidence that many COVID-19 cases continue to go undetected. In fact, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that only 7% of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are being detected. That means case rates are actually 14.5 times higher than the official count of 131,000 new COVID infections each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports the virus is still killing about 440 Americans daily.

So, why is all this important, in terms of public health?

Experts say people are more likely to be cautious if they know COVID-19 cases are high where they live, work, and play. On the other hand, if they believe case rates in their communities are lower than they actually are, they may be less likely to get vaccinated and boosted, wear masks indoors, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and take other precautions to fend off infection.
 

How do some avoid infection altogether?

In addition to tracking cases that go unreported and don’t have symptoms, infectious disease experts have also been trying to figure out why some people have managed to avoid getting the highly contagious virus.

Several leading lines of research have produced promising early results – suggesting that a person’s genetic makeup, past exposure to less-lethal coronaviruses, allergies, and even certain drugs they take for other conditions may all provide at least some protection against COVID.

“Our study showed that there are many human genes – hundreds of genes – that can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection,” says Neville Sanjana, PhD, a geneticist at New York University and the New York Genome Center who co-led the study. “With a better understanding of host genetic factors, we can find new kinds of therapies that target these host factors to block infection.”

In addition, he says several studies show some drugs that regulate genes, such as the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, also appear to knock down COVID-19 risk. He suggests such drugs, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration, might be “repurposed” to target the virus.

Studies in other countries show that patients taking tamoxifen before the pandemic were protected against severe COVID-19, Dr. Sanjana says. “That was a really cool thing, highlighting the power of harnessing host genetics. The virus critically depends on our genes to complete key parts of its life cycle.”

The NYU research findings echo other studies that have been published in recent months.

In July, a team of researchers led by the National Cancer Institute identified a genetic factor that appears to determine how severe an infection will be. In a study involving 3,000 people, they found that two gene changes, or mutations, that decrease the expression of a gene called OAS1 boosted the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. OAS1 is part of the immune system’s response to viral infections.

As a result, developing a genetic therapy designed to increase the OAS1 gene’s expression might reduce the risk of severe disease.

“It’s very natural to get infected once you are exposed. There’s no magic bullet for that. But after you get infected, how you’re going to respond to this infection, that’s what is going to be affected by your genetic variants,” said Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson, PhD, the study’s lead researcher and chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Translational Genomics, Bethesda, Md., in an interview with NBC News.

Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a New York University virologist who co-authored the 2020 research, says the new genetic research is promising, but he believes it’s unlikely scientists will be able to identify a single gene responsible for actually preventing a COVID-19 infection.

“On the flip side, we have identified many genes that makes the disease worse,” he says.
 

T cells ‘remember’ past viral infections

As Dr. tenOever and Dr. Sanjana suggest, another intriguing line of research has found that prior viral infections may prime the body’s immune system to fight COVID-19.

Four other common coronaviruses – aside from SARS-CoV-2 – infect people worldwide, typically causing mild to moderate upper respiratory illnesses like the common cold, says Alessandro Sette, PhD, an infectious disease expert and vaccine researcher with the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

In a recent study published in Science, he and his team found past infection with these other coronaviruses may give some protection against SARS-CoV-2.

T cells – white blood cells that act like immunological ninjas to ferret out and fight infections – appear to maintain a kind of “biological memory” of coronaviruses they have seen before and can mount an attack on similar pathogens, such SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Sette says.

The new work builds on a prior research he helped lead that found 40%-60% of people never exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had T cells that reacted to the virus – with their immune systems recognizing fragments of a virus they had never seen before.

Dr. Sette says his research shows that people whose T cells have this “preexisting memory” of past coronavirus exposures also tend to respond better to vaccination for reasons not yet well understood.

“The question is, at which point will there be enough immunity from vaccination, repeated infections from other coronaviruses, but also some of the variants of the SARS-CoV-2 … where infections become less frequent? We’re not there yet,” he says.

In addition to these exciting genetic and T-cell findings, other research has suggested low-grade inflammation from allergies – a key part of the body’s immune response to foreign substances – may also give some people an extra leg up, in terms of avoiding COVID infection.

Last May, a study of 1,400 households published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that having a food allergy cut the risk of COVID-19 infection in half.

The researchers said it’s unclear why allergies may reduce the risk of infection, but they noted that people with food allergies express fewer ACE2 receptors on the surface of their airway cells, making it harder for the virus to enter cells.
 

The big picture: Prevention still your best bet

So, what’s the takeaway from all of this emerging research?

New York University’s Dr. tenOever says that while genes, T cells and allergies may offer some protection against COVID, tried-and-true precautions – vaccination, wearing masks, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and social distancing – are likely to provide a greater defense.

He believes these precautions are likely why he and his family have never contracted COVID-19.

“I was tested weekly, as were my kids at school,” he says. “We definitely never got COVID, despite the fact that we live in New York City and I worked in a hospital every single day of the pandemic.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of clinical epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees that the new research on COVID-19 is intriguing but won’t likely result in practical changes in the approach to fighting the virus in the near term.

“Getting a deeper understanding of potential genetic factors or other characteristics – that could really help us understand why the virus just comes and goes without any ill effects in some people, and in other people it produces really serious disease,” he says. “That will really help us eventually to design better vaccines to prevent it or reduce severity or even [treat] people who get severe disease.”

In the meantime, Dr. Al-Aly says, “it’s still best to do everything you can to avoid infection in the first place – even if you’re vaccinated or previously infected, you should really try to avoid reinfection.”

That means sit outside if you can when visiting a restaurant. Wear a mask on a plane, even though it’s not required. And get vaccinated and boosted.

“In the future, there may be more tools to address this pandemic, but that’s really the best advice for now,” Dr. Al-Aly says.

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

We all have friends or relatives who, somehow, have managed to avoid catching COVID-19, which has infected more than 91.5 million Americans. You may even be one of the lucky ones yourself.

But health experts are saying: Not so fast. A mounting pile of scientific evidence suggests millions of Americans have been infected with the virus without ever even knowing it because they didn’t have symptoms or had mild cases they mistook for a cold or allergies.

The upshot: These silent COVID-19 cases reflect a hidden side of the pandemic that may be helping to drive new surges and viral variants.

Still, infectious disease experts say there is little doubt that some people have indeed managed to avoid COVID-19 infection altogether, and they are trying to understand why.

Several recent studies have suggested certain genetic and immune system traits may better protect this group of people against the coronavirus, making them less likely than others to be infected or seriously sickened. Researchers around the world are now studying these seemingly super-immune people for clues to what makes them so special, with an eye toward better vaccines, treatments, and prevention strategies.

Infectious disease specialists say both types of cases – those unknowingly infected by COVID-19 and people who’ve avoided the virus altogether – matter greatly to public health, more than 2 years into the pandemic.

“It’s definitely true that some people have had COVID and don’t realize it,” says Stephen Kissler, PhD, an infectious disease researcher with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “It is potentially good news if there’s more immunity in the population than we realize.”

But he says that being able to identify genetic and other factors that may offer some people protection against COVID-19 is an “exciting prospect” that could help find out who’s most at risk and improve efforts to get the pandemic under control.

Some studies have found a person’s genetic profile, past exposure to other COVID-like viruses, allergies, and even drugs they take for other conditions may all provide some defense – even for people who have not been vaccinated, don’t use masks, or don’t practice social distancing.

A person’s medical history and genetics may help decide their risk from new diseases, meaning “we may be able to help identify people who are at especially high risk from infection,” Dr. Kissler says. “That knowledge could help those people better shield themselves from infection and get quicker access to treatment and vaccines, if necessary. … We don’t yet know, but studies are ongoing for these things.”

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, agrees that emerging research on people who’ve avoided infection offers the chance of new public health strategies to combat COVID-19.

“I’m sure there is some subset of people who are [COVID] negative,” he says. “So what explains that phenomenon, especially if that person was out there getting significant exposures?”
 

Have you had COVID without knowing it?

In a media briefing late last month, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, said more than 70% of the U.S. population has had the virus, according to the latest CDC data. That’s up from 33.5% in December.

But the actual number of people in the U.S. who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19, is likely to be much higher due to cases without symptoms that are unreported, experts say.

Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have tried to put a number on these hidden cases, but that figure has been evolving and a clear consensus has not emerged.

In September 2020, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine said “approximately 40% to 45% of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will remain asymptomatic.”

A follow-up analysis of 95 studies, published last December, reached similar findings, estimating that more than 40% of COVID-19 infections didn’t come with symptoms.

To get a better handle on the issue, CDC officials have been working with the American Red Cross and other blood banks to track COVID-19 antibodies – proteins your body makes after exposure to the virus to fight off an infection – in donors who said they have never had COVID-19.

While that joint effort is still ongoing, early findings say the number of donors with antibodies from COVID-19 infection increased in blood donors from 3.5% in July 2020 to at least 20.2% in May 2021. Since then, those percentages have soared, in part due to the introduction of vaccines, which also make the body produce COVID-19 antibodies.

The most current findings show that 83.3% of donors have combined COVID infection– and vaccine-induced antibodies in their blood. Those findings are based on 1.4 million blood donations.

Health experts say all of these studies are strong evidence that many COVID-19 cases continue to go undetected. In fact, the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that only 7% of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are being detected. That means case rates are actually 14.5 times higher than the official count of 131,000 new COVID infections each day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reports the virus is still killing about 440 Americans daily.

So, why is all this important, in terms of public health?

Experts say people are more likely to be cautious if they know COVID-19 cases are high where they live, work, and play. On the other hand, if they believe case rates in their communities are lower than they actually are, they may be less likely to get vaccinated and boosted, wear masks indoors, avoid crowded indoor spaces, and take other precautions to fend off infection.
 

How do some avoid infection altogether?

In addition to tracking cases that go unreported and don’t have symptoms, infectious disease experts have also been trying to figure out why some people have managed to avoid getting the highly contagious virus.

Several leading lines of research have produced promising early results – suggesting that a person’s genetic makeup, past exposure to less-lethal coronaviruses, allergies, and even certain drugs they take for other conditions may all provide at least some protection against COVID.

“Our study showed that there are many human genes – hundreds of genes – that can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection,” says Neville Sanjana, PhD, a geneticist at New York University and the New York Genome Center who co-led the study. “With a better understanding of host genetic factors, we can find new kinds of therapies that target these host factors to block infection.”

In addition, he says several studies show some drugs that regulate genes, such as the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, also appear to knock down COVID-19 risk. He suggests such drugs, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration, might be “repurposed” to target the virus.

Studies in other countries show that patients taking tamoxifen before the pandemic were protected against severe COVID-19, Dr. Sanjana says. “That was a really cool thing, highlighting the power of harnessing host genetics. The virus critically depends on our genes to complete key parts of its life cycle.”

The NYU research findings echo other studies that have been published in recent months.

In July, a team of researchers led by the National Cancer Institute identified a genetic factor that appears to determine how severe an infection will be. In a study involving 3,000 people, they found that two gene changes, or mutations, that decrease the expression of a gene called OAS1 boosted the risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. OAS1 is part of the immune system’s response to viral infections.

As a result, developing a genetic therapy designed to increase the OAS1 gene’s expression might reduce the risk of severe disease.

“It’s very natural to get infected once you are exposed. There’s no magic bullet for that. But after you get infected, how you’re going to respond to this infection, that’s what is going to be affected by your genetic variants,” said Ludmila Prokunina-Olsson, PhD, the study’s lead researcher and chief of the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Translational Genomics, Bethesda, Md., in an interview with NBC News.

Benjamin tenOever, PhD, a New York University virologist who co-authored the 2020 research, says the new genetic research is promising, but he believes it’s unlikely scientists will be able to identify a single gene responsible for actually preventing a COVID-19 infection.

“On the flip side, we have identified many genes that makes the disease worse,” he says.
 

T cells ‘remember’ past viral infections

As Dr. tenOever and Dr. Sanjana suggest, another intriguing line of research has found that prior viral infections may prime the body’s immune system to fight COVID-19.

Four other common coronaviruses – aside from SARS-CoV-2 – infect people worldwide, typically causing mild to moderate upper respiratory illnesses like the common cold, says Alessandro Sette, PhD, an infectious disease expert and vaccine researcher with the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

In a recent study published in Science, he and his team found past infection with these other coronaviruses may give some protection against SARS-CoV-2.

T cells – white blood cells that act like immunological ninjas to ferret out and fight infections – appear to maintain a kind of “biological memory” of coronaviruses they have seen before and can mount an attack on similar pathogens, such SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Sette says.

The new work builds on a prior research he helped lead that found 40%-60% of people never exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had T cells that reacted to the virus – with their immune systems recognizing fragments of a virus they had never seen before.

Dr. Sette says his research shows that people whose T cells have this “preexisting memory” of past coronavirus exposures also tend to respond better to vaccination for reasons not yet well understood.

“The question is, at which point will there be enough immunity from vaccination, repeated infections from other coronaviruses, but also some of the variants of the SARS-CoV-2 … where infections become less frequent? We’re not there yet,” he says.

In addition to these exciting genetic and T-cell findings, other research has suggested low-grade inflammation from allergies – a key part of the body’s immune response to foreign substances – may also give some people an extra leg up, in terms of avoiding COVID infection.

Last May, a study of 1,400 households published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that having a food allergy cut the risk of COVID-19 infection in half.

The researchers said it’s unclear why allergies may reduce the risk of infection, but they noted that people with food allergies express fewer ACE2 receptors on the surface of their airway cells, making it harder for the virus to enter cells.
 

The big picture: Prevention still your best bet

So, what’s the takeaway from all of this emerging research?

New York University’s Dr. tenOever says that while genes, T cells and allergies may offer some protection against COVID, tried-and-true precautions – vaccination, wearing masks, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and social distancing – are likely to provide a greater defense.

He believes these precautions are likely why he and his family have never contracted COVID-19.

“I was tested weekly, as were my kids at school,” he says. “We definitely never got COVID, despite the fact that we live in New York City and I worked in a hospital every single day of the pandemic.”

Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of clinical epidemiology at Washington University in St. Louis, agrees that the new research on COVID-19 is intriguing but won’t likely result in practical changes in the approach to fighting the virus in the near term.

“Getting a deeper understanding of potential genetic factors or other characteristics – that could really help us understand why the virus just comes and goes without any ill effects in some people, and in other people it produces really serious disease,” he says. “That will really help us eventually to design better vaccines to prevent it or reduce severity or even [treat] people who get severe disease.”

In the meantime, Dr. Al-Aly says, “it’s still best to do everything you can to avoid infection in the first place – even if you’re vaccinated or previously infected, you should really try to avoid reinfection.”

That means sit outside if you can when visiting a restaurant. Wear a mask on a plane, even though it’s not required. And get vaccinated and boosted.

“In the future, there may be more tools to address this pandemic, but that’s really the best advice for now,” Dr. Al-Aly says.

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

Jessica Furby struggled with weight most of her life, constantly dieting and exercising to shed pounds. But nothing seemed to help. By her 22nd birthday, she tipped the scales at more than 300 pounds.

So, in 2011, while a college student in Pittsburgh, she decided to have gastric band surgery. Doctors placed a synthetic belt around her stomach to limit what she could eat. It seemed like a good option at the time and, after her surgery, she lost about 60 pounds.

But the benefits didn’t last. In the months that followed, she had pain and other complications. Worst of all, she eventually regained all the weight she’d lost – and then some. By 2016, she weighed 350 pounds and was becoming prediabetic.

That’s when she decided to have the band removed and, on her doctor’s recommendation, had gastric sleeve surgery.

Studies have found the sleeve surgeries carry fewer complications and a much higher success rate than gastric band procedures, which Ms. Furby’s experience has confirmed.

Today, at age 32, she’s down to 288 pounds and says she is on her way to hitting her ultimate goal of 200 pounds.

“The surgery has been a godsend,” she said. “I have not had any complications with it at all. The sleeve was life-changing for me.”

Ms. Furby’s experience has become more common as the risks, complications, and failures of gastric band surgeries have been rising over the past decade.

More band patients are choosing to have conversion surgery to gastric sleeve and gastric bypass. At the same time, fewer doctors are doing gastric band procedures, because of problems like Ms. Furby’s.

According to the latest figures from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, gastric band procedures account for fewer than 1% of the 256,000 bariatric operations done in the United States each year, while gastric sleeves add up to nearly 60%. That makes sleeve surgeries the most commonly performed bariatric operation today.

By comparison, 35% of bariatric surgeries were gastric band procedures in 2011, while sleeve operations accounted for under 18%.

Ms. Furby’s surgeon, Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, said the trend is being driven by many of the things Ms.Furby experienced firsthand.

Dr. Courcoulas, chief of minimally invasive bariatric and general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said there are two main reasons for the decline in gastric band procedures.

“It has been shown to be less effective for weight loss [than] other bariatric surgical procedures, and band intolerance often results in band removal,” she noted.

Gastric sleeve, followed by gastric bypass, are the two most commonly performed operations in the United States and worldwide, she said.

Dr. Courcoulas said the shift from gastric bypass to gastric sleeve procedures “is likely driven by the decline in the band usage, patient preferences for a less invasive operation, such as the sleeve compared to bypass, and surgeon preferences about which operation(s) to offer a given patient.”

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, agrees that gastric band complications and failures, in addition to ineffective weight loss, are behind the trend, driving patients and doctors to choose safer and more effective procedures.

He said the Cleveland Clinic no longer does band operations, and he has done a lot of conversions.

“Around 50%-60% of [gastric band] patients require reoperation to take care of the complications,” he says. “So, when you have a surgery where more than half of the time the patients require reoperation, we cannot claim that’s a safe operation.”
 

Evolution in bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgeries for weight loss date back to the 1950s and 1960s, when surgeons at the University of Minnesota first did experimental bypass operations. Adjustable gastric banding appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But these procedures didn’t gain widespread mainstream use until gastric band procedures gained full Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. Clinical trials have found people who have bariatric surgery have a significantly lower risk of heart disease and other obesity-related health problems.

In the decade that followed the FDA’s approval of gastric band surgery, it became a popular weight loss procedure, accounting for more than a third of all bariatric surgeries by 2011.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago, [gastric] band was the most commonly performed procedure for bariatric surgery worldwide and in the United States,” Dr. Aminian said. “It was very easy to do, it was quick – it takes 20 minutes to do the procedure – recovery was short, and initially patients had great outcomes. They would lose weight and were healthy.”

But over the past decade, surgeons found that patients often regained the weight they’d lost, and complication and failure rates rose.

“Because the [gastric] band is a foreign body that we place inside the body, many patients had complications related to that foreign body,” Dr. Aminian said.

The band can sometimes move or be displaced, causing blockage of the stomach, experts noted. Other common complications include nausea, vomiting, acid reflux, and esophageal issues (such as a hard time swallowing). Some patients feel pain, constant food cravings, or that they can’t eat or drink anything. And painful infections and other problems can develop with the tubing or the port placed under the skin that is connected to the band, which doctors use to make adjustments after surgery.

“Scar tissue can also form around the [gastric] band that can cause a blockage in the stomach,” Dr. Aminian said. “Then if the band is too tight, it can erode into the stomach tissue or even go inside the stomach and cause perforation or bleeding.”

By contrast, gastric sleeve and bypass procedures have been found to be safer, result in longer-lasting weight loss, carry fewer complications, and require fewer patient reoperations. Dr. Aminian estimates that 2%-3% of patients need second operations.

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

Sleeve and bypass procedures offer another critical advantage over band operations: They help reset the body’s metabolism better, changing appetite- and weight-related hormones in the body.

Those hormones can affect food cravings, help people feel full after eating, or boost weight gain in ways that can trump willpower, experts say.

“The [gastric] band doesn’t change the hormones in the body, it’s just a restrictive band around the esophagus or the upper part of the stomach, so it limits the patient’s ability to eat too much,” Dr. Aminian said. “That’s why it doesn’t have the metabolic effects.”

But other procedures, like the gastric sleeve, change the hormones in the body. Removing the source of those hormones means the patient won’t have the same appetite, Dr. Aminian said.

“And that’s why it’s very effective. The problem with the [gastric] band is the patient always has the feeling and desire to eat – they’re always hungry. That’s why in the long run, they fail,” he said.

“They change the setpoints,” Dr. Aminian said. “When the hormones in your body change, the [metabolic] setpoint in the brain also changes.”

He likens the metabolic setpoint to a thermostat in your home that regulates temperature inside.

“When a patient goes on a diet or goes on the [gastric] band, the thermostat doesn’t change,” he says. “They may lose some weight, but they’re going to regain it because the thermostat is the same. But when the hormones in your body change, then the thermostat will change and you’re not going to regain the weight that you have lost.”

Sachin Kukreja, MD, a surgeon and CEO at DFW Bariatrics and General Surgery in Dallas, said he believes these metabolic changes are the biggest things behind successful surgeries.

“People synonymize bariatric surgery with weight loss surgery, but really the metrics we should be using are more related to metabolic measures,” said Dr. Kukreja, who hasn’t done a band surgery since 2013. “And so, the metabolic parameters that change with bariatric surgery are much more significant in the setting with sleeve and gastric sleeve, and much less significant with [gastric] band.”

David Arterburn, MD, agrees that resetting metabolism is important but said the issue is “controversial and challenging” among bariatric surgeons.

“The metabolic setpoint is the idea that we have a biologically controlled set body weight that we will always return to. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone, as some people lose and maintain long-term weight loss,” said Dr. Arterburn, a general internist and bariatric surgery researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
 

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

Bariatric surgeons and patients alike also say that no surgical procedure is a magic-bullet solution for weight loss. Patients who have any type of bariatric surgery must embrace postop lifestyle changes – adopting healthier diets, getting more exercise, cutting out unhealthy habits – to lose weight and maintain weight loss.

Jan Lasecki, 54, a health care specialist in Akron, Ohio, who had band-to-sleeve conversion surgery in 2020, said the postop follow-up was at least as important as the surgery itself in helping her shed pounds.

She said at first, she chose gastric band surgery several years ago because it was “less invasive” than gastric sleeve or bypass. But while she lost about 50 pounds, she regained it after about 6 years and had other complications.

So, 2 years ago, Ms. Lasecki had two surgeries 6 months apart – one to remove her band, and a second to create a gastric sleeve. And the results, she said, have been very successful, in part because of the changes she made after surgery, with the help of her doctor’s staff.

“I have now lost about 90 pounds and have kept if off since surgery,” she says. “I would tell anyone considering any bariatric surgery, it was definitely worth it [and] having the sleeve resulted in greater weight loss.”

The follow-up was key to the success, she said.

The staff “have the tools and support to help you when you tend to fall back on old behaviors and start to regain weight,” Ms. Lasecki said. “They can help you before it gets out of control. I had no issues following either procedure from a surgery perspective.”

Sally and Robert Cordova – who had gastric bypass and sleeve surgeries, respectively, 3 years ago – agreed that the postop lifestyle changes are critical to success.

“When we agreed to have this surgery, we agreed that this will be a lifestyle change for the rest of our lives,” said Sally, 48, an accounting specialist who’s lost 150 pounds – half her body weight – since her surgery. “You can’t just get to your ideal weight and then stop.”

Robert, 47, a federal border control agent whose workmates nicknamed him “Big Rob” when he tipped the scales at 336 pounds, said it’s a mistake to think of the surgery as a “magic-bullet” solution to obesity. There’s more to it than that, he said.

“One of the things I like about the process I’ve taken is, in my opinion, they set you up for success,” he said. “Because it’s not just having the surgery and you’re done; it’s all the classes educating you about all the lifestyle changes you have to do, and starting them before the surgery. The only people that I know personally who haven’t been successful with the surgery are those who haven’t made the lifestyle changes.”

Today, at 230 pounds, Robert says he’s never felt better.

“I feel great,” he says. “I have become more active, obviously doing everything is a lot easier. It got to the point where it was a task to just tying up my shoes!”
 

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

Bariatric surgeons interviewed for this article were reluctant to say that all people who had gastric band procedures should convert to gastric sleeve or bypass. But they made it clear that sleeve and bypass procedures are safer and more effective than gastric band surgery, which is why it is rarely done today.

“If a patient experiences poor weight loss or complications from a band, they can consider conversion/revision to a sleeve or bypass,” said Dr. Courcoulas, echoing the views of other doctors.

“The choice of revision procedure should be based on patient factors, including diabetes and total weight. Converting a band to a sleeve is a technically easier operation, and some studies show that there are fewer complications, compared to conversion to a bypass. These considerations need to be balanced with data that show that both weight loss and metabolic improvements such as diabetes are greater after bypass, compared to sleeve.”

Doctors and experts also say it’s important for patients who are considering a gastric band conversion to gastric sleeve or bypass to understand the differences among these three primary procedures, all endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Here’s a primer, including the pros and cons of each procedure:
 

Gastric band

In gastric band surgery, an adjustable gastric band made of silicone is placed around the top part of the stomach, creating a small pouch above it, to limit the amount of food a person can eat. The size of the opening between the pouch and the stomach can be adjusted with fluid injections through a port placed underneath the skin.

Food goes through the stomach but is limited by the smaller opening of the band.

Advantages:

• Lowest rate of complications right after surgery.
• No division of the stomach or intestines.
• Patients go home on the day of surgery, and recovery is quick.
• The band can be removed, if necessary.

Disadvantages:

• The band may need to be adjusted from time to time, and patients must make monthly office visits during the first year.
• There’s less weight loss than with other surgical procedures.
• It comes with the risk of band movement (slippage) or damage to the stomach over time (erosion).
• The surgery means that a foreign implant has to remain in the body.
• It has a high rate of reoperation.
• The surgery can bring swallowing problems, enlargement of the esophagus, and other complications.

Gastric sleeve

For laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy – often called gastric sleeve – surgeons remove about 80% of the stomach, so the remaining stomach is the size and shape of a banana.

The new, smaller stomach holds less food and liquid, reducing how much food (and how many calories) the patient can get. By removing the portion of the stomach that produces hunger and appetite hormones, the surgery also helps reset the body’s metabolism – decreasing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and allowing the body to reach and maintain a healthy weight as well as control blood sugar.

Advantages:

• It’s technically simple and has a short surgery time.
• It can be done in certain patients with high-risk medical conditions.
• It may be the first step for patients with severe obesity or as a bridge to gastric bypass.
• The surgery brings effective weight loss and improvement of obesity-related conditions (typically 50%-60%, by Mayo Clinic estimates), with a low complication rate (2%-3%).

Disadvantages:

• Nonreversible procedure.
• May worsen or cause new reflux and heartburn.
• Less impact on metabolism, compared to bypass procedures.

Gastric bypass

Gastric bypass, also known as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (French for “in the form of a Y”) is another effective procedure used to treat obesity and obesity-related diseases (done laparoscopically since the 1990s).

For the operation, surgeons divide the stomach into a smaller top portion (pouch) about the size of an egg, then the larger part of the stomach is bypassed and no longer stores or digests food.

The small intestine is divided and connected to the new egg-sized stomach pouch to allow food to pass.

Gastric bypass works by limiting the amount of food and calories a patient can consume. It also decreases hunger and increases fullness, allowing the patient to reach and maintain a healthy weight. The impact on hormones and metabolic health often results in improvement of diabetes and helps patients with reflux.

Advantages:

• Reliable and long-lasting weight loss.
• Effective for remission of obesity-associated conditions.
• Effective weight loss (60%-70%, by Mayo Clinic estimates).

Disadvantages:

• Technically more complex when compared to gastric sleeve or band.
• More vitamin and mineral deficiencies than with gastric sleeve or band.
• Risk for small bowel complications and obstruction, as well as ulcers, especially with NSAID or tobacco use.
• May cause “dumping syndrome,” a feeling of sickness after eating or drinking, especially sweets.

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

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to properly identify a product referenced in the story.

Jessica Furby struggled with weight most of her life, constantly dieting and exercising to shed pounds. But nothing seemed to help. By her 22nd birthday, she tipped the scales at more than 300 pounds.

So, in 2011, while a college student in Pittsburgh, she decided to have gastric band surgery. Doctors placed a synthetic belt around her stomach to limit what she could eat. It seemed like a good option at the time and, after her surgery, she lost about 60 pounds.

But the benefits didn’t last. In the months that followed, she had pain and other complications. Worst of all, she eventually regained all the weight she’d lost – and then some. By 2016, she weighed 350 pounds and was becoming prediabetic.

That’s when she decided to have the band removed and, on her doctor’s recommendation, had gastric sleeve surgery.

Studies have found the sleeve surgeries carry fewer complications and a much higher success rate than gastric band procedures, which Ms. Furby’s experience has confirmed.

Today, at age 32, she’s down to 288 pounds and says she is on her way to hitting her ultimate goal of 200 pounds.

“The surgery has been a godsend,” she said. “I have not had any complications with it at all. The sleeve was life-changing for me.”

Ms. Furby’s experience has become more common as the risks, complications, and failures of gastric band surgeries have been rising over the past decade.

More band patients are choosing to have conversion surgery to gastric sleeve and gastric bypass. At the same time, fewer doctors are doing gastric band procedures, because of problems like Ms. Furby’s.

According to the latest figures from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, gastric band procedures account for fewer than 1% of the 256,000 bariatric operations done in the United States each year, while gastric sleeves add up to nearly 60%. That makes sleeve surgeries the most commonly performed bariatric operation today.

By comparison, 35% of bariatric surgeries were gastric band procedures in 2011, while sleeve operations accounted for under 18%.

Ms. Furby’s surgeon, Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, said the trend is being driven by many of the things Ms.Furby experienced firsthand.

Dr. Courcoulas, chief of minimally invasive bariatric and general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said there are two main reasons for the decline in gastric band procedures.

“It has been shown to be less effective for weight loss [than] other bariatric surgical procedures, and band intolerance often results in band removal,” she noted.

Gastric sleeve, followed by gastric bypass, are the two most commonly performed operations in the United States and worldwide, she said.

Dr. Courcoulas said the shift from gastric bypass to gastric sleeve procedures “is likely driven by the decline in the band usage, patient preferences for a less invasive operation, such as the sleeve compared to bypass, and surgeon preferences about which operation(s) to offer a given patient.”

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, agrees that gastric band complications and failures, in addition to ineffective weight loss, are behind the trend, driving patients and doctors to choose safer and more effective procedures.

He said the Cleveland Clinic no longer does band operations, and he has done a lot of conversions.

“Around 50%-60% of [gastric band] patients require reoperation to take care of the complications,” he says. “So, when you have a surgery where more than half of the time the patients require reoperation, we cannot claim that’s a safe operation.”
 

Evolution in bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgeries for weight loss date back to the 1950s and 1960s, when surgeons at the University of Minnesota first did experimental bypass operations. Adjustable gastric banding appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But these procedures didn’t gain widespread mainstream use until gastric band procedures gained full Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. Clinical trials have found people who have bariatric surgery have a significantly lower risk of heart disease and other obesity-related health problems.

In the decade that followed the FDA’s approval of gastric band surgery, it became a popular weight loss procedure, accounting for more than a third of all bariatric surgeries by 2011.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago, [gastric] band was the most commonly performed procedure for bariatric surgery worldwide and in the United States,” Dr. Aminian said. “It was very easy to do, it was quick – it takes 20 minutes to do the procedure – recovery was short, and initially patients had great outcomes. They would lose weight and were healthy.”

But over the past decade, surgeons found that patients often regained the weight they’d lost, and complication and failure rates rose.

“Because the [gastric] band is a foreign body that we place inside the body, many patients had complications related to that foreign body,” Dr. Aminian said.

The band can sometimes move or be displaced, causing blockage of the stomach, experts noted. Other common complications include nausea, vomiting, acid reflux, and esophageal issues (such as a hard time swallowing). Some patients feel pain, constant food cravings, or that they can’t eat or drink anything. And painful infections and other problems can develop with the tubing or the port placed under the skin that is connected to the band, which doctors use to make adjustments after surgery.

“Scar tissue can also form around the [gastric] band that can cause a blockage in the stomach,” Dr. Aminian said. “Then if the band is too tight, it can erode into the stomach tissue or even go inside the stomach and cause perforation or bleeding.”

By contrast, gastric sleeve and bypass procedures have been found to be safer, result in longer-lasting weight loss, carry fewer complications, and require fewer patient reoperations. Dr. Aminian estimates that 2%-3% of patients need second operations.

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

Sleeve and bypass procedures offer another critical advantage over band operations: They help reset the body’s metabolism better, changing appetite- and weight-related hormones in the body.

Those hormones can affect food cravings, help people feel full after eating, or boost weight gain in ways that can trump willpower, experts say.

“The [gastric] band doesn’t change the hormones in the body, it’s just a restrictive band around the esophagus or the upper part of the stomach, so it limits the patient’s ability to eat too much,” Dr. Aminian said. “That’s why it doesn’t have the metabolic effects.”

But other procedures, like the gastric sleeve, change the hormones in the body. Removing the source of those hormones means the patient won’t have the same appetite, Dr. Aminian said.

“And that’s why it’s very effective. The problem with the [gastric] band is the patient always has the feeling and desire to eat – they’re always hungry. That’s why in the long run, they fail,” he said.

“They change the setpoints,” Dr. Aminian said. “When the hormones in your body change, the [metabolic] setpoint in the brain also changes.”

He likens the metabolic setpoint to a thermostat in your home that regulates temperature inside.

“When a patient goes on a diet or goes on the [gastric] band, the thermostat doesn’t change,” he says. “They may lose some weight, but they’re going to regain it because the thermostat is the same. But when the hormones in your body change, then the thermostat will change and you’re not going to regain the weight that you have lost.”

Sachin Kukreja, MD, a surgeon and CEO at DFW Bariatrics and General Surgery in Dallas, said he believes these metabolic changes are the biggest things behind successful surgeries.

“People synonymize bariatric surgery with weight loss surgery, but really the metrics we should be using are more related to metabolic measures,” said Dr. Kukreja, who hasn’t done a band surgery since 2013. “And so, the metabolic parameters that change with bariatric surgery are much more significant in the setting with sleeve and gastric sleeve, and much less significant with [gastric] band.”

David Arterburn, MD, agrees that resetting metabolism is important but said the issue is “controversial and challenging” among bariatric surgeons.

“The metabolic setpoint is the idea that we have a biologically controlled set body weight that we will always return to. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone, as some people lose and maintain long-term weight loss,” said Dr. Arterburn, a general internist and bariatric surgery researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
 

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

Bariatric surgeons and patients alike also say that no surgical procedure is a magic-bullet solution for weight loss. Patients who have any type of bariatric surgery must embrace postop lifestyle changes – adopting healthier diets, getting more exercise, cutting out unhealthy habits – to lose weight and maintain weight loss.

Jan Lasecki, 54, a health care specialist in Akron, Ohio, who had band-to-sleeve conversion surgery in 2020, said the postop follow-up was at least as important as the surgery itself in helping her shed pounds.

She said at first, she chose gastric band surgery several years ago because it was “less invasive” than gastric sleeve or bypass. But while she lost about 50 pounds, she regained it after about 6 years and had other complications.

So, 2 years ago, Ms. Lasecki had two surgeries 6 months apart – one to remove her band, and a second to create a gastric sleeve. And the results, she said, have been very successful, in part because of the changes she made after surgery, with the help of her doctor’s staff.

“I have now lost about 90 pounds and have kept if off since surgery,” she says. “I would tell anyone considering any bariatric surgery, it was definitely worth it [and] having the sleeve resulted in greater weight loss.”

The follow-up was key to the success, she said.

The staff “have the tools and support to help you when you tend to fall back on old behaviors and start to regain weight,” Ms. Lasecki said. “They can help you before it gets out of control. I had no issues following either procedure from a surgery perspective.”

Sally and Robert Cordova – who had gastric bypass and sleeve surgeries, respectively, 3 years ago – agreed that the postop lifestyle changes are critical to success.

“When we agreed to have this surgery, we agreed that this will be a lifestyle change for the rest of our lives,” said Sally, 48, an accounting specialist who’s lost 150 pounds – half her body weight – since her surgery. “You can’t just get to your ideal weight and then stop.”

Robert, 47, a federal border control agent whose workmates nicknamed him “Big Rob” when he tipped the scales at 336 pounds, said it’s a mistake to think of the surgery as a “magic-bullet” solution to obesity. There’s more to it than that, he said.

“One of the things I like about the process I’ve taken is, in my opinion, they set you up for success,” he said. “Because it’s not just having the surgery and you’re done; it’s all the classes educating you about all the lifestyle changes you have to do, and starting them before the surgery. The only people that I know personally who haven’t been successful with the surgery are those who haven’t made the lifestyle changes.”

Today, at 230 pounds, Robert says he’s never felt better.

“I feel great,” he says. “I have become more active, obviously doing everything is a lot easier. It got to the point where it was a task to just tying up my shoes!”
 

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

Bariatric surgeons interviewed for this article were reluctant to say that all people who had gastric band procedures should convert to gastric sleeve or bypass. But they made it clear that sleeve and bypass procedures are safer and more effective than gastric band surgery, which is why it is rarely done today.

“If a patient experiences poor weight loss or complications from a band, they can consider conversion/revision to a sleeve or bypass,” said Dr. Courcoulas, echoing the views of other doctors.

“The choice of revision procedure should be based on patient factors, including diabetes and total weight. Converting a band to a sleeve is a technically easier operation, and some studies show that there are fewer complications, compared to conversion to a bypass. These considerations need to be balanced with data that show that both weight loss and metabolic improvements such as diabetes are greater after bypass, compared to sleeve.”

Doctors and experts also say it’s important for patients who are considering a gastric band conversion to gastric sleeve or bypass to understand the differences among these three primary procedures, all endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Here’s a primer, including the pros and cons of each procedure:
 

Gastric band

In gastric band surgery, an adjustable gastric band made of silicone is placed around the top part of the stomach, creating a small pouch above it, to limit the amount of food a person can eat. The size of the opening between the pouch and the stomach can be adjusted with fluid injections through a port placed underneath the skin.

Food goes through the stomach but is limited by the smaller opening of the band.

Advantages:

• Lowest rate of complications right after surgery.
• No division of the stomach or intestines.
• Patients go home on the day of surgery, and recovery is quick.
• The band can be removed, if necessary.

Disadvantages:

• The band may need to be adjusted from time to time, and patients must make monthly office visits during the first year.
• There’s less weight loss than with other surgical procedures.
• It comes with the risk of band movement (slippage) or damage to the stomach over time (erosion).
• The surgery means that a foreign implant has to remain in the body.
• It has a high rate of reoperation.
• The surgery can bring swallowing problems, enlargement of the esophagus, and other complications.

Gastric sleeve

For laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy – often called gastric sleeve – surgeons remove about 80% of the stomach, so the remaining stomach is the size and shape of a banana.

The new, smaller stomach holds less food and liquid, reducing how much food (and how many calories) the patient can get. By removing the portion of the stomach that produces hunger and appetite hormones, the surgery also helps reset the body’s metabolism – decreasing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and allowing the body to reach and maintain a healthy weight as well as control blood sugar.

Advantages:

• It’s technically simple and has a short surgery time.
• It can be done in certain patients with high-risk medical conditions.
• It may be the first step for patients with severe obesity or as a bridge to gastric bypass.
• The surgery brings effective weight loss and improvement of obesity-related conditions (typically 50%-60%, by Mayo Clinic estimates), with a low complication rate (2%-3%).

Disadvantages:

• Nonreversible procedure.
• May worsen or cause new reflux and heartburn.
• Less impact on metabolism, compared to bypass procedures.

Gastric bypass

Gastric bypass, also known as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (French for “in the form of a Y”) is another effective procedure used to treat obesity and obesity-related diseases (done laparoscopically since the 1990s).

For the operation, surgeons divide the stomach into a smaller top portion (pouch) about the size of an egg, then the larger part of the stomach is bypassed and no longer stores or digests food.

The small intestine is divided and connected to the new egg-sized stomach pouch to allow food to pass.

Gastric bypass works by limiting the amount of food and calories a patient can consume. It also decreases hunger and increases fullness, allowing the patient to reach and maintain a healthy weight. The impact on hormones and metabolic health often results in improvement of diabetes and helps patients with reflux.

Advantages:

• Reliable and long-lasting weight loss.
• Effective for remission of obesity-associated conditions.
• Effective weight loss (60%-70%, by Mayo Clinic estimates).

Disadvantages:

• Technically more complex when compared to gastric sleeve or band.
• More vitamin and mineral deficiencies than with gastric sleeve or band.
• Risk for small bowel complications and obstruction, as well as ulcers, especially with NSAID or tobacco use.
• May cause “dumping syndrome,” a feeling of sickness after eating or drinking, especially sweets.

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

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to properly identify a product referenced in the story.

Jessica Furby struggled with weight most of her life, constantly dieting and exercising to shed pounds. But nothing seemed to help. By her 22nd birthday, she tipped the scales at more than 300 pounds.

So, in 2011, while a college student in Pittsburgh, she decided to have gastric band surgery. Doctors placed a synthetic belt around her stomach to limit what she could eat. It seemed like a good option at the time and, after her surgery, she lost about 60 pounds.

But the benefits didn’t last. In the months that followed, she had pain and other complications. Worst of all, she eventually regained all the weight she’d lost – and then some. By 2016, she weighed 350 pounds and was becoming prediabetic.

That’s when she decided to have the band removed and, on her doctor’s recommendation, had gastric sleeve surgery.

Studies have found the sleeve surgeries carry fewer complications and a much higher success rate than gastric band procedures, which Ms. Furby’s experience has confirmed.

Today, at age 32, she’s down to 288 pounds and says she is on her way to hitting her ultimate goal of 200 pounds.

“The surgery has been a godsend,” she said. “I have not had any complications with it at all. The sleeve was life-changing for me.”

Ms. Furby’s experience has become more common as the risks, complications, and failures of gastric band surgeries have been rising over the past decade.

More band patients are choosing to have conversion surgery to gastric sleeve and gastric bypass. At the same time, fewer doctors are doing gastric band procedures, because of problems like Ms. Furby’s.

According to the latest figures from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, gastric band procedures account for fewer than 1% of the 256,000 bariatric operations done in the United States each year, while gastric sleeves add up to nearly 60%. That makes sleeve surgeries the most commonly performed bariatric operation today.

By comparison, 35% of bariatric surgeries were gastric band procedures in 2011, while sleeve operations accounted for under 18%.

Ms. Furby’s surgeon, Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, said the trend is being driven by many of the things Ms.Furby experienced firsthand.

Dr. Courcoulas, chief of minimally invasive bariatric and general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said there are two main reasons for the decline in gastric band procedures.

“It has been shown to be less effective for weight loss [than] other bariatric surgical procedures, and band intolerance often results in band removal,” she noted.

Gastric sleeve, followed by gastric bypass, are the two most commonly performed operations in the United States and worldwide, she said.

Dr. Courcoulas said the shift from gastric bypass to gastric sleeve procedures “is likely driven by the decline in the band usage, patient preferences for a less invasive operation, such as the sleeve compared to bypass, and surgeon preferences about which operation(s) to offer a given patient.”

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, agrees that gastric band complications and failures, in addition to ineffective weight loss, are behind the trend, driving patients and doctors to choose safer and more effective procedures.

He said the Cleveland Clinic no longer does band operations, and he has done a lot of conversions.

“Around 50%-60% of [gastric band] patients require reoperation to take care of the complications,” he says. “So, when you have a surgery where more than half of the time the patients require reoperation, we cannot claim that’s a safe operation.”
 

Evolution in bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgeries for weight loss date back to the 1950s and 1960s, when surgeons at the University of Minnesota first did experimental bypass operations. Adjustable gastric banding appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But these procedures didn’t gain widespread mainstream use until gastric band procedures gained full Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. Clinical trials have found people who have bariatric surgery have a significantly lower risk of heart disease and other obesity-related health problems.

In the decade that followed the FDA’s approval of gastric band surgery, it became a popular weight loss procedure, accounting for more than a third of all bariatric surgeries by 2011.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago, [gastric] band was the most commonly performed procedure for bariatric surgery worldwide and in the United States,” Dr. Aminian said. “It was very easy to do, it was quick – it takes 20 minutes to do the procedure – recovery was short, and initially patients had great outcomes. They would lose weight and were healthy.”

But over the past decade, surgeons found that patients often regained the weight they’d lost, and complication and failure rates rose.

“Because the [gastric] band is a foreign body that we place inside the body, many patients had complications related to that foreign body,” Dr. Aminian said.

The band can sometimes move or be displaced, causing blockage of the stomach, experts noted. Other common complications include nausea, vomiting, acid reflux, and esophageal issues (such as a hard time swallowing). Some patients feel pain, constant food cravings, or that they can’t eat or drink anything. And painful infections and other problems can develop with the tubing or the port placed under the skin that is connected to the band, which doctors use to make adjustments after surgery.

“Scar tissue can also form around the [gastric] band that can cause a blockage in the stomach,” Dr. Aminian said. “Then if the band is too tight, it can erode into the stomach tissue or even go inside the stomach and cause perforation or bleeding.”

By contrast, gastric sleeve and bypass procedures have been found to be safer, result in longer-lasting weight loss, carry fewer complications, and require fewer patient reoperations. Dr. Aminian estimates that 2%-3% of patients need second operations.

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

Sleeve and bypass procedures offer another critical advantage over band operations: They help reset the body’s metabolism better, changing appetite- and weight-related hormones in the body.

Those hormones can affect food cravings, help people feel full after eating, or boost weight gain in ways that can trump willpower, experts say.

“The [gastric] band doesn’t change the hormones in the body, it’s just a restrictive band around the esophagus or the upper part of the stomach, so it limits the patient’s ability to eat too much,” Dr. Aminian said. “That’s why it doesn’t have the metabolic effects.”

But other procedures, like the gastric sleeve, change the hormones in the body. Removing the source of those hormones means the patient won’t have the same appetite, Dr. Aminian said.

“And that’s why it’s very effective. The problem with the [gastric] band is the patient always has the feeling and desire to eat – they’re always hungry. That’s why in the long run, they fail,” he said.

“They change the setpoints,” Dr. Aminian said. “When the hormones in your body change, the [metabolic] setpoint in the brain also changes.”

He likens the metabolic setpoint to a thermostat in your home that regulates temperature inside.

“When a patient goes on a diet or goes on the [gastric] band, the thermostat doesn’t change,” he says. “They may lose some weight, but they’re going to regain it because the thermostat is the same. But when the hormones in your body change, then the thermostat will change and you’re not going to regain the weight that you have lost.”

Sachin Kukreja, MD, a surgeon and CEO at DFW Bariatrics and General Surgery in Dallas, said he believes these metabolic changes are the biggest things behind successful surgeries.

“People synonymize bariatric surgery with weight loss surgery, but really the metrics we should be using are more related to metabolic measures,” said Dr. Kukreja, who hasn’t done a band surgery since 2013. “And so, the metabolic parameters that change with bariatric surgery are much more significant in the setting with sleeve and gastric sleeve, and much less significant with [gastric] band.”

David Arterburn, MD, agrees that resetting metabolism is important but said the issue is “controversial and challenging” among bariatric surgeons.

“The metabolic setpoint is the idea that we have a biologically controlled set body weight that we will always return to. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone, as some people lose and maintain long-term weight loss,” said Dr. Arterburn, a general internist and bariatric surgery researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
 

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

Bariatric surgeons and patients alike also say that no surgical procedure is a magic-bullet solution for weight loss. Patients who have any type of bariatric surgery must embrace postop lifestyle changes – adopting healthier diets, getting more exercise, cutting out unhealthy habits – to lose weight and maintain weight loss.

Jan Lasecki, 54, a health care specialist in Akron, Ohio, who had band-to-sleeve conversion surgery in 2020, said the postop follow-up was at least as important as the surgery itself in helping her shed pounds.

She said at first, she chose gastric band surgery several years ago because it was “less invasive” than gastric sleeve or bypass. But while she lost about 50 pounds, she regained it after about 6 years and had other complications.

So, 2 years ago, Ms. Lasecki had two surgeries 6 months apart – one to remove her band, and a second to create a gastric sleeve. And the results, she said, have been very successful, in part because of the changes she made after surgery, with the help of her doctor’s staff.

“I have now lost about 90 pounds and have kept if off since surgery,” she says. “I would tell anyone considering any bariatric surgery, it was definitely worth it [and] having the sleeve resulted in greater weight loss.”

The follow-up was key to the success, she said.

The staff “have the tools and support to help you when you tend to fall back on old behaviors and start to regain weight,” Ms. Lasecki said. “They can help you before it gets out of control. I had no issues following either procedure from a surgery perspective.”

Sally and Robert Cordova – who had gastric bypass and sleeve surgeries, respectively, 3 years ago – agreed that the postop lifestyle changes are critical to success.

“When we agreed to have this surgery, we agreed that this will be a lifestyle change for the rest of our lives,” said Sally, 48, an accounting specialist who’s lost 150 pounds – half her body weight – since her surgery. “You can’t just get to your ideal weight and then stop.”

Robert, 47, a federal border control agent whose workmates nicknamed him “Big Rob” when he tipped the scales at 336 pounds, said it’s a mistake to think of the surgery as a “magic-bullet” solution to obesity. There’s more to it than that, he said.

“One of the things I like about the process I’ve taken is, in my opinion, they set you up for success,” he said. “Because it’s not just having the surgery and you’re done; it’s all the classes educating you about all the lifestyle changes you have to do, and starting them before the surgery. The only people that I know personally who haven’t been successful with the surgery are those who haven’t made the lifestyle changes.”

Today, at 230 pounds, Robert says he’s never felt better.

“I feel great,” he says. “I have become more active, obviously doing everything is a lot easier. It got to the point where it was a task to just tying up my shoes!”
 

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

Bariatric surgeons interviewed for this article were reluctant to say that all people who had gastric band procedures should convert to gastric sleeve or bypass. But they made it clear that sleeve and bypass procedures are safer and more effective than gastric band surgery, which is why it is rarely done today.

“If a patient experiences poor weight loss or complications from a band, they can consider conversion/revision to a sleeve or bypass,” said Dr. Courcoulas, echoing the views of other doctors.

“The choice of revision procedure should be based on patient factors, including diabetes and total weight. Converting a band to a sleeve is a technically easier operation, and some studies show that there are fewer complications, compared to conversion to a bypass. These considerations need to be balanced with data that show that both weight loss and metabolic improvements such as diabetes are greater after bypass, compared to sleeve.”

Doctors and experts also say it’s important for patients who are considering a gastric band conversion to gastric sleeve or bypass to understand the differences among these three primary procedures, all endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Here’s a primer, including the pros and cons of each procedure:
 

Gastric band

In gastric band surgery, an adjustable gastric band made of silicone is placed around the top part of the stomach, creating a small pouch above it, to limit the amount of food a person can eat. The size of the opening between the pouch and the stomach can be adjusted with fluid injections through a port placed underneath the skin.

Food goes through the stomach but is limited by the smaller opening of the band.

Advantages:

• Lowest rate of complications right after surgery.
• No division of the stomach or intestines.
• Patients go home on the day of surgery, and recovery is quick.
• The band can be removed, if necessary.

Disadvantages:

• The band may need to be adjusted from time to time, and patients must make monthly office visits during the first year.
• There’s less weight loss than with other surgical procedures.
• It comes with the risk of band movement (slippage) or damage to the stomach over time (erosion).
• The surgery means that a foreign implant has to remain in the body.
• It has a high rate of reoperation.
• The surgery can bring swallowing problems, enlargement of the esophagus, and other complications.

Gastric sleeve

For laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy – often called gastric sleeve – surgeons remove about 80% of the stomach, so the remaining stomach is the size and shape of a banana.

The new, smaller stomach holds less food and liquid, reducing how much food (and how many calories) the patient can get. By removing the portion of the stomach that produces hunger and appetite hormones, the surgery also helps reset the body’s metabolism – decreasing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and allowing the body to reach and maintain a healthy weight as well as control blood sugar.

Advantages:

• It’s technically simple and has a short surgery time.
• It can be done in certain patients with high-risk medical conditions.
• It may be the first step for patients with severe obesity or as a bridge to gastric bypass.
• The surgery brings effective weight loss and improvement of obesity-related conditions (typically 50%-60%, by Mayo Clinic estimates), with a low complication rate (2%-3%).

Disadvantages:

• Nonreversible procedure.
• May worsen or cause new reflux and heartburn.
• Less impact on metabolism, compared to bypass procedures.

Gastric bypass

Gastric bypass, also known as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (French for “in the form of a Y”) is another effective procedure used to treat obesity and obesity-related diseases (done laparoscopically since the 1990s).

For the operation, surgeons divide the stomach into a smaller top portion (pouch) about the size of an egg, then the larger part of the stomach is bypassed and no longer stores or digests food.

The small intestine is divided and connected to the new egg-sized stomach pouch to allow food to pass.

Gastric bypass works by limiting the amount of food and calories a patient can consume. It also decreases hunger and increases fullness, allowing the patient to reach and maintain a healthy weight. The impact on hormones and metabolic health often results in improvement of diabetes and helps patients with reflux.

Advantages:

• Reliable and long-lasting weight loss.
• Effective for remission of obesity-associated conditions.
• Effective weight loss (60%-70%, by Mayo Clinic estimates).

Disadvantages:

• Technically more complex when compared to gastric sleeve or band.
• More vitamin and mineral deficiencies than with gastric sleeve or band.
• Risk for small bowel complications and obstruction, as well as ulcers, especially with NSAID or tobacco use.
• May cause “dumping syndrome,” a feeling of sickness after eating or drinking, especially sweets.

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

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to properly identify a product referenced in the story.

Can you tell which of the following statements are true and which are false?

COVID-19 is not a threat to younger people, and only those who have other medical conditions are dying from it.

The mRNA vaccines developed to prevent the coronavirus alter your genes, can make your body “magnetic,” and are killing more people than the virus itself.

President Joe Biden’s climate change plan calls for a ban on meat consumption to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

If you guessed that all of these claims are false, you’re right – take a bow. Not a single one of these statements has any factual support, according to scientific research, legal rulings, and legitimate government authorities.

And yet public opinion surveys show millions of Americans, and others around the world, believe some of these falsehoods are true and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Social media, politicians and partisan websites, TV programs, and commentators have widely circulated these and other unfounded claims so frequently that many people say they simply can’t tell what’s objectively true and not anymore.

So much so, the authors of a fascinating new research study have concluded we are living in a “post-truth era,” with baseless beliefs and subjective opinions given a higher priority than verifiable facts.

The new study – The Rise and Fall of Rationality in Language, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – found that facts have become less important in public discourse.

As a result, unsupported beliefs have taken precedent over readily identifiable truths in discussions of health, science, and politics. The upshot: “Feelings trump facts” in social media, news reports, books, and other sources of information.

And here’s the kicker: The trend did not begin with the rise of former President Donald Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the advent of social media; in fact, it has been growing for much longer than you might think.

“While the current ‘post-truth era’ has taken many by surprise, the study shows that over the past 40 years, public interest has undergone an accelerating shift from the collective to the individual, and from rationality towards emotion,” concluded the researchers from Indiana University and Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands.

“Our work suggests that the societal balance between emotion and reason has shifted back to what it used to be around 150 years ago,” says lead researcher Marten Scheffer, PhD, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at WUR. “This implies that scientists, experts, and policymakers will have to think about the best way to respond to that social change.”
 

Researchers surprised by findings

The findings are based on a very detailed analysis of language from millions of books, newspaper articles, Google searches, TV reports, social media posts, and other sources dating back to 1850.

The researchers analyzed how often the 5,000 most used words appeared over the past 170 years and found that the use of those having to do with facts and reasoning, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” has fallen dramatically since 1980. Meanwhile, the use of words related to human emotion, such as “feel” and “believe,” have skyrocketed.

Dr. Scheffer notes rapid developments in science and technology from 1850 to 1980 had profound social and economic benefits that helped boost the status of the scientific approach. That shift in public attitudes had ripple effects on culture, society, education, politics, and religion – and “the role of spiritualism dwindled” in the modern world, he says.

But since 1980, that trend has seen a major reversal, with beliefs becoming more important than facts to many people, he says. At the same time, trust in science and scientists has fallen.

Dr. Scheffer says the researchers expected to find some evidence of a swing toward more belief-based sentiments during the Trump era but were surprised to discover how strong it is and that the trend has actually been a long time coming.

“The shift in interest from rational to intuitive/emotional is pretty obvious now in the post-truth political and social media discussion,” he says. “However, our work shows that it already started in the 1980s. For me personally, that went under the radar, except perhaps for the rise of alternative (to religion) forms of spirituality.

“We were especially struck by how strong the patterns are and how universal they appear across languages, nonfiction and fiction, and even in The New York Times.”

In the political world, the implications are significant enough – impacting policies and politicians on both sides of the aisle and across the globe. Just look at the deepening political divisions during the Trump presidency.

But for health and science, the spread of misinformation and falsehoods can be matters of life or death, as we have seen in the politically charged debates over how best to combat COVID-19 and global climate change.

“Our public debate seems increasingly driven by what people want to be true rather than what is actually true. As a scientist, that worries me,” says study co-author Johan Bollen, PhD, a professor of informatics at Indiana University.

“As a society, we are now faced with major collective problems that we need to approach from a pragmatic, rational, and objective perspective to be successful,” he says. “After all, global warming doesn’t care about whether you believe in it or not … but we will all suffer as a society if we fail to take adequate measures.”

For WUR co-researcher Ingrid van de Leemput, the trend isn’t merely academic; she’s seen it play out in her personal life.

“I do speak to people that, for instance, think the vaccines are poison,” she says. “I’m also on Twitter, and there, I’m every day surprised about how easily many people form their opinions, based on feelings, on what others say, or on some unfounded source.”

Public health experts say the embrace of personal beliefs over facts is one reason only 63% of Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The result: millions of preventable infections among those who downplay the risks of the virus and reject the strong scientific evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

“None of this really surprises me,” Johns Hopkins University social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, says of the new study findings. Dr. Limaye coauthored a paper in 2016 in JAMA Pediatrics about how to talk to parents about vaccine hesitancy and the fact that we’re living in what they called “this post-truth era.”

Dr. Limaye says the trend has made it difficult for doctors, scientists, and health authorities to make fact-based arguments for COVID-19 vaccination, mask-wearing, social distancing, and other measures to control the virus.

“It’s been really hard being a scientist to hear people say, ‘Well, that’s not true’ when we say something very basic that I think all of us can agree on – like the grass is green,” she says. “To be honest, I worry that a lot of scientists are going to quit being in science because they’re exhausted.”
 

What’s driving the trend?

So, what’s behind the embrace of “alternative facts,” as former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway put it so brazenly in 2017, in defending the White House’s false claims that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever?

Dr. Scheffer and colleagues identified a handful of things that have encouraged the embrace of falsehoods over facts in recent years.

• The Internet: Its rise in the late 1980s, and its growing role as a primary source of news and information, has allowed more belief-based misinformation to flourish and spread like wildfire.
• Social media: The new study found the use of sentiment- and intuition-related words accelerated around 2007, along with a global surge in social media that catapulted Facebook, Twitter, and others into the mainstream, replacing more traditional fact-based media (i.e., newspapers and magazines).
• The 2007 financial crisis: The downturn in the global economy meant more people were dealing with job stress, investment losses, and other problems that fed the interest in belief-based, anti-establishment social media posts.
• Conspiracy theories: Falsehoods involving hidden political agendas, shadow “elites,” and wealthy people with dark motives tend to thrive during times of crisis and societal anxiety. “Conspiracy theories originate particularly in times of uncertainty and crisis and generally depict established institutions as hiding the truth and sustaining an unfair situation,” the researchers noted. “As a result, they may find fertile grounds on social media platforms promulgating a sense of unfairness, subsequently feeding anti-system sentiments.”

Dr. Scheffer says that growing political divisions during the Trump era have widened the fact-vs.-fiction divide. The ex-president voiced many anti-science views on global climate change, for instance, and spread so many falsehoods about COVID-19 and the 2020 election that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts.

Yet Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans, with most saying in a December poll they believe his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” despite all credible, easily accessible evidence that it was secure, according to a recent poll by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

More than 60 courts have rejected Trump’s lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and both branches of Congress have certified the election results, giving Biden the White House. Even Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair.

Nevertheless, the University of Massachusetts survey found that most Republicans believe one or more conspiracy theories floated by the former president and those pushing his “big lie” that Democrats rigged the election to elect Biden.

Ed Berliner, an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist and media consultant, suggests something else is driving the spread of misinformation: the pursuit of ratings by cable TV and media companies to boost ad and subscriber revenues.

As a former executive producer and syndicated cable TV show host, he says he has seen firsthand how facts are often lost in opinion-driven news programs, even on network programs claiming to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.

“Propaganda is the new currency in America, and those who do not fight back against it are doomed to be overrun by the misinformation,” says Mr. Berliner, host of The Man in the Arena and CEO of Entourage Media LLC.

“The broadcast news media has to stop this incessant ‘infotainment’ prattle, stop trying to nuzzle up to a soft side, and bear down on hard facts, exposing the lies and refusing to back down.”
 

Public health implications

Public health and media experts alike say the PNAS study findings are disheartening but underscore the need for doctors and scientists to do a better job of communicating about COVID-19 and other pressing issues.

Dr. Limaye, from Johns Hopkins, is particularly concerned about the rise in conspiracy theories that has led to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

“When we speak to individuals about getting the COVID vaccine…the types of concerns that come up now are very different than they were 8 years ago,” she says. “The comments we used to hear were much more related to vaccine safety. [People] would say, ‘I’m worried about an ingredient in the vaccine’ or ‘I’m worried that my kiddo has to get three different shots within 6 months to have a series dose completed.’”

But now, a lot of comments they receive are about government and pharma conspiracies.

What that means is doctors and scientists must do more than simply say “here are the facts” and “trust me, I’m a doctor or a scientist,” she says. And these approaches don’t only apply to public health.

“It’s funny, because when we talk to climate change scientists, as vaccine [specialists], we’ll say we can’t believe that people think COVID is a hoax,” she says. “And they’re like, ‘Hold my beer, we’ve been dealing with this for 20 years. Hello, it’s just your guys’ turn to deal with this public denial of science.’”

Dr. Limaye is also concerned about the impacts on funding for scientific research.

“There’s always been a really strong bipartisan effort with regards to funding for science, when you look at Congress and when you look at appropriations,” she says. “But what ended up happening, especially with the Trump administration, was that there was a real shift in that. We’ve never really seen that before in past generations.”

So, what’s the big take-home message?

Dr. Limaye believes doctors and public health experts must show more empathy – and not be combative or arrogant – in communicating science in one-on-one conversations. This month, she’s launching a new course for parents, school administrators, and nurses on how to do precisely that.

“It’s really all about how to have hard conversations with people who might be anti-science,” she says. “It’s being empathetic and not being dismissive. But it’s hard work, and I think a lot of people are just not cut out for it and just don’t have the time for it…You can’t just say, ‘Well, this is science, and I’m a doctor’ – that doesn’t work anymore.”

Brendan Nyhan, PhD, a Dartmouth College political scientist, echoes those sentiments in a separate paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, he suggests that providing accurate, fact-based information to counter false claims may actually backfire and reinforce some people’s unfounded beliefs.

“One response to the prevalence of mistaken beliefs is to try to set the record straight by providing accurate information – for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change,” he writes. “The failures of this approach, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ in science communication, are well-known.”

Dr. Nyhan argues two things make some people more prone to believe falsehoods:

What scientists call “ingrouping,” a kind of tribal mentality that makes some people choose social identity or politics over truth-seeking and demonize others who don’t agree with their views

The rise of high-profile political figures, such as Trump, who encourage their followers to indulge in their desire for “identify-affirming misinformation”

Dr. Scheffer says the most important thing for doctors, health experts, and scientists to recognize is that it’s crucial to gain the trust of someone who may believe fictions over facts to make any persuasive argument on COVID-19 or any other issue.

He also has a standard response to those who present falsehoods to him as facts that he suggests anyone can use: “That is interesting. Would you mind helping me understand how you came to that opinion?”

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

Can you tell which of the following statements are true and which are false?

COVID-19 is not a threat to younger people, and only those who have other medical conditions are dying from it.

The mRNA vaccines developed to prevent the coronavirus alter your genes, can make your body “magnetic,” and are killing more people than the virus itself.

President Joe Biden’s climate change plan calls for a ban on meat consumption to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

If you guessed that all of these claims are false, you’re right – take a bow. Not a single one of these statements has any factual support, according to scientific research, legal rulings, and legitimate government authorities.

And yet public opinion surveys show millions of Americans, and others around the world, believe some of these falsehoods are true and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Social media, politicians and partisan websites, TV programs, and commentators have widely circulated these and other unfounded claims so frequently that many people say they simply can’t tell what’s objectively true and not anymore.

So much so, the authors of a fascinating new research study have concluded we are living in a “post-truth era,” with baseless beliefs and subjective opinions given a higher priority than verifiable facts.

The new study – The Rise and Fall of Rationality in Language, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – found that facts have become less important in public discourse.

As a result, unsupported beliefs have taken precedent over readily identifiable truths in discussions of health, science, and politics. The upshot: “Feelings trump facts” in social media, news reports, books, and other sources of information.

And here’s the kicker: The trend did not begin with the rise of former President Donald Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the advent of social media; in fact, it has been growing for much longer than you might think.

“While the current ‘post-truth era’ has taken many by surprise, the study shows that over the past 40 years, public interest has undergone an accelerating shift from the collective to the individual, and from rationality towards emotion,” concluded the researchers from Indiana University and Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands.

“Our work suggests that the societal balance between emotion and reason has shifted back to what it used to be around 150 years ago,” says lead researcher Marten Scheffer, PhD, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at WUR. “This implies that scientists, experts, and policymakers will have to think about the best way to respond to that social change.”
 

Researchers surprised by findings

The findings are based on a very detailed analysis of language from millions of books, newspaper articles, Google searches, TV reports, social media posts, and other sources dating back to 1850.

The researchers analyzed how often the 5,000 most used words appeared over the past 170 years and found that the use of those having to do with facts and reasoning, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” has fallen dramatically since 1980. Meanwhile, the use of words related to human emotion, such as “feel” and “believe,” have skyrocketed.

Dr. Scheffer notes rapid developments in science and technology from 1850 to 1980 had profound social and economic benefits that helped boost the status of the scientific approach. That shift in public attitudes had ripple effects on culture, society, education, politics, and religion – and “the role of spiritualism dwindled” in the modern world, he says.

But since 1980, that trend has seen a major reversal, with beliefs becoming more important than facts to many people, he says. At the same time, trust in science and scientists has fallen.

Dr. Scheffer says the researchers expected to find some evidence of a swing toward more belief-based sentiments during the Trump era but were surprised to discover how strong it is and that the trend has actually been a long time coming.

“The shift in interest from rational to intuitive/emotional is pretty obvious now in the post-truth political and social media discussion,” he says. “However, our work shows that it already started in the 1980s. For me personally, that went under the radar, except perhaps for the rise of alternative (to religion) forms of spirituality.

“We were especially struck by how strong the patterns are and how universal they appear across languages, nonfiction and fiction, and even in The New York Times.”

In the political world, the implications are significant enough – impacting policies and politicians on both sides of the aisle and across the globe. Just look at the deepening political divisions during the Trump presidency.

But for health and science, the spread of misinformation and falsehoods can be matters of life or death, as we have seen in the politically charged debates over how best to combat COVID-19 and global climate change.

“Our public debate seems increasingly driven by what people want to be true rather than what is actually true. As a scientist, that worries me,” says study co-author Johan Bollen, PhD, a professor of informatics at Indiana University.

“As a society, we are now faced with major collective problems that we need to approach from a pragmatic, rational, and objective perspective to be successful,” he says. “After all, global warming doesn’t care about whether you believe in it or not … but we will all suffer as a society if we fail to take adequate measures.”

For WUR co-researcher Ingrid van de Leemput, the trend isn’t merely academic; she’s seen it play out in her personal life.

“I do speak to people that, for instance, think the vaccines are poison,” she says. “I’m also on Twitter, and there, I’m every day surprised about how easily many people form their opinions, based on feelings, on what others say, or on some unfounded source.”

Public health experts say the embrace of personal beliefs over facts is one reason only 63% of Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The result: millions of preventable infections among those who downplay the risks of the virus and reject the strong scientific evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

“None of this really surprises me,” Johns Hopkins University social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, says of the new study findings. Dr. Limaye coauthored a paper in 2016 in JAMA Pediatrics about how to talk to parents about vaccine hesitancy and the fact that we’re living in what they called “this post-truth era.”

Dr. Limaye says the trend has made it difficult for doctors, scientists, and health authorities to make fact-based arguments for COVID-19 vaccination, mask-wearing, social distancing, and other measures to control the virus.

“It’s been really hard being a scientist to hear people say, ‘Well, that’s not true’ when we say something very basic that I think all of us can agree on – like the grass is green,” she says. “To be honest, I worry that a lot of scientists are going to quit being in science because they’re exhausted.”
 

What’s driving the trend?

So, what’s behind the embrace of “alternative facts,” as former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway put it so brazenly in 2017, in defending the White House’s false claims that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever?

Dr. Scheffer and colleagues identified a handful of things that have encouraged the embrace of falsehoods over facts in recent years.

• The Internet: Its rise in the late 1980s, and its growing role as a primary source of news and information, has allowed more belief-based misinformation to flourish and spread like wildfire.
• Social media: The new study found the use of sentiment- and intuition-related words accelerated around 2007, along with a global surge in social media that catapulted Facebook, Twitter, and others into the mainstream, replacing more traditional fact-based media (i.e., newspapers and magazines).
• The 2007 financial crisis: The downturn in the global economy meant more people were dealing with job stress, investment losses, and other problems that fed the interest in belief-based, anti-establishment social media posts.
• Conspiracy theories: Falsehoods involving hidden political agendas, shadow “elites,” and wealthy people with dark motives tend to thrive during times of crisis and societal anxiety. “Conspiracy theories originate particularly in times of uncertainty and crisis and generally depict established institutions as hiding the truth and sustaining an unfair situation,” the researchers noted. “As a result, they may find fertile grounds on social media platforms promulgating a sense of unfairness, subsequently feeding anti-system sentiments.”

Dr. Scheffer says that growing political divisions during the Trump era have widened the fact-vs.-fiction divide. The ex-president voiced many anti-science views on global climate change, for instance, and spread so many falsehoods about COVID-19 and the 2020 election that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts.

Yet Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans, with most saying in a December poll they believe his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” despite all credible, easily accessible evidence that it was secure, according to a recent poll by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

More than 60 courts have rejected Trump’s lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and both branches of Congress have certified the election results, giving Biden the White House. Even Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair.

Nevertheless, the University of Massachusetts survey found that most Republicans believe one or more conspiracy theories floated by the former president and those pushing his “big lie” that Democrats rigged the election to elect Biden.

Ed Berliner, an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist and media consultant, suggests something else is driving the spread of misinformation: the pursuit of ratings by cable TV and media companies to boost ad and subscriber revenues.

As a former executive producer and syndicated cable TV show host, he says he has seen firsthand how facts are often lost in opinion-driven news programs, even on network programs claiming to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.

“Propaganda is the new currency in America, and those who do not fight back against it are doomed to be overrun by the misinformation,” says Mr. Berliner, host of The Man in the Arena and CEO of Entourage Media LLC.

“The broadcast news media has to stop this incessant ‘infotainment’ prattle, stop trying to nuzzle up to a soft side, and bear down on hard facts, exposing the lies and refusing to back down.”
 

Public health implications

Public health and media experts alike say the PNAS study findings are disheartening but underscore the need for doctors and scientists to do a better job of communicating about COVID-19 and other pressing issues.

Dr. Limaye, from Johns Hopkins, is particularly concerned about the rise in conspiracy theories that has led to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

“When we speak to individuals about getting the COVID vaccine…the types of concerns that come up now are very different than they were 8 years ago,” she says. “The comments we used to hear were much more related to vaccine safety. [People] would say, ‘I’m worried about an ingredient in the vaccine’ or ‘I’m worried that my kiddo has to get three different shots within 6 months to have a series dose completed.’”

But now, a lot of comments they receive are about government and pharma conspiracies.

What that means is doctors and scientists must do more than simply say “here are the facts” and “trust me, I’m a doctor or a scientist,” she says. And these approaches don’t only apply to public health.

“It’s funny, because when we talk to climate change scientists, as vaccine [specialists], we’ll say we can’t believe that people think COVID is a hoax,” she says. “And they’re like, ‘Hold my beer, we’ve been dealing with this for 20 years. Hello, it’s just your guys’ turn to deal with this public denial of science.’”

Dr. Limaye is also concerned about the impacts on funding for scientific research.

“There’s always been a really strong bipartisan effort with regards to funding for science, when you look at Congress and when you look at appropriations,” she says. “But what ended up happening, especially with the Trump administration, was that there was a real shift in that. We’ve never really seen that before in past generations.”

So, what’s the big take-home message?

Dr. Limaye believes doctors and public health experts must show more empathy – and not be combative or arrogant – in communicating science in one-on-one conversations. This month, she’s launching a new course for parents, school administrators, and nurses on how to do precisely that.

“It’s really all about how to have hard conversations with people who might be anti-science,” she says. “It’s being empathetic and not being dismissive. But it’s hard work, and I think a lot of people are just not cut out for it and just don’t have the time for it…You can’t just say, ‘Well, this is science, and I’m a doctor’ – that doesn’t work anymore.”

Brendan Nyhan, PhD, a Dartmouth College political scientist, echoes those sentiments in a separate paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, he suggests that providing accurate, fact-based information to counter false claims may actually backfire and reinforce some people’s unfounded beliefs.

“One response to the prevalence of mistaken beliefs is to try to set the record straight by providing accurate information – for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change,” he writes. “The failures of this approach, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ in science communication, are well-known.”

Dr. Nyhan argues two things make some people more prone to believe falsehoods:

What scientists call “ingrouping,” a kind of tribal mentality that makes some people choose social identity or politics over truth-seeking and demonize others who don’t agree with their views

The rise of high-profile political figures, such as Trump, who encourage their followers to indulge in their desire for “identify-affirming misinformation”

Dr. Scheffer says the most important thing for doctors, health experts, and scientists to recognize is that it’s crucial to gain the trust of someone who may believe fictions over facts to make any persuasive argument on COVID-19 or any other issue.

He also has a standard response to those who present falsehoods to him as facts that he suggests anyone can use: “That is interesting. Would you mind helping me understand how you came to that opinion?”

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

Can you tell which of the following statements are true and which are false?

COVID-19 is not a threat to younger people, and only those who have other medical conditions are dying from it.

The mRNA vaccines developed to prevent the coronavirus alter your genes, can make your body “magnetic,” and are killing more people than the virus itself.

President Joe Biden’s climate change plan calls for a ban on meat consumption to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

If you guessed that all of these claims are false, you’re right – take a bow. Not a single one of these statements has any factual support, according to scientific research, legal rulings, and legitimate government authorities.

And yet public opinion surveys show millions of Americans, and others around the world, believe some of these falsehoods are true and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Social media, politicians and partisan websites, TV programs, and commentators have widely circulated these and other unfounded claims so frequently that many people say they simply can’t tell what’s objectively true and not anymore.

So much so, the authors of a fascinating new research study have concluded we are living in a “post-truth era,” with baseless beliefs and subjective opinions given a higher priority than verifiable facts.

The new study – The Rise and Fall of Rationality in Language, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – found that facts have become less important in public discourse.

As a result, unsupported beliefs have taken precedent over readily identifiable truths in discussions of health, science, and politics. The upshot: “Feelings trump facts” in social media, news reports, books, and other sources of information.

And here’s the kicker: The trend did not begin with the rise of former President Donald Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the advent of social media; in fact, it has been growing for much longer than you might think.

“While the current ‘post-truth era’ has taken many by surprise, the study shows that over the past 40 years, public interest has undergone an accelerating shift from the collective to the individual, and from rationality towards emotion,” concluded the researchers from Indiana University and Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands.

“Our work suggests that the societal balance between emotion and reason has shifted back to what it used to be around 150 years ago,” says lead researcher Marten Scheffer, PhD, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at WUR. “This implies that scientists, experts, and policymakers will have to think about the best way to respond to that social change.”
 

Researchers surprised by findings

The findings are based on a very detailed analysis of language from millions of books, newspaper articles, Google searches, TV reports, social media posts, and other sources dating back to 1850.

The researchers analyzed how often the 5,000 most used words appeared over the past 170 years and found that the use of those having to do with facts and reasoning, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” has fallen dramatically since 1980. Meanwhile, the use of words related to human emotion, such as “feel” and “believe,” have skyrocketed.

Dr. Scheffer notes rapid developments in science and technology from 1850 to 1980 had profound social and economic benefits that helped boost the status of the scientific approach. That shift in public attitudes had ripple effects on culture, society, education, politics, and religion – and “the role of spiritualism dwindled” in the modern world, he says.

But since 1980, that trend has seen a major reversal, with beliefs becoming more important than facts to many people, he says. At the same time, trust in science and scientists has fallen.

Dr. Scheffer says the researchers expected to find some evidence of a swing toward more belief-based sentiments during the Trump era but were surprised to discover how strong it is and that the trend has actually been a long time coming.

“The shift in interest from rational to intuitive/emotional is pretty obvious now in the post-truth political and social media discussion,” he says. “However, our work shows that it already started in the 1980s. For me personally, that went under the radar, except perhaps for the rise of alternative (to religion) forms of spirituality.

“We were especially struck by how strong the patterns are and how universal they appear across languages, nonfiction and fiction, and even in The New York Times.”

In the political world, the implications are significant enough – impacting policies and politicians on both sides of the aisle and across the globe. Just look at the deepening political divisions during the Trump presidency.

But for health and science, the spread of misinformation and falsehoods can be matters of life or death, as we have seen in the politically charged debates over how best to combat COVID-19 and global climate change.

“Our public debate seems increasingly driven by what people want to be true rather than what is actually true. As a scientist, that worries me,” says study co-author Johan Bollen, PhD, a professor of informatics at Indiana University.

“As a society, we are now faced with major collective problems that we need to approach from a pragmatic, rational, and objective perspective to be successful,” he says. “After all, global warming doesn’t care about whether you believe in it or not … but we will all suffer as a society if we fail to take adequate measures.”

For WUR co-researcher Ingrid van de Leemput, the trend isn’t merely academic; she’s seen it play out in her personal life.

“I do speak to people that, for instance, think the vaccines are poison,” she says. “I’m also on Twitter, and there, I’m every day surprised about how easily many people form their opinions, based on feelings, on what others say, or on some unfounded source.”

Public health experts say the embrace of personal beliefs over facts is one reason only 63% of Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The result: millions of preventable infections among those who downplay the risks of the virus and reject the strong scientific evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

“None of this really surprises me,” Johns Hopkins University social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, says of the new study findings. Dr. Limaye coauthored a paper in 2016 in JAMA Pediatrics about how to talk to parents about vaccine hesitancy and the fact that we’re living in what they called “this post-truth era.”

Dr. Limaye says the trend has made it difficult for doctors, scientists, and health authorities to make fact-based arguments for COVID-19 vaccination, mask-wearing, social distancing, and other measures to control the virus.

“It’s been really hard being a scientist to hear people say, ‘Well, that’s not true’ when we say something very basic that I think all of us can agree on – like the grass is green,” she says. “To be honest, I worry that a lot of scientists are going to quit being in science because they’re exhausted.”
 

What’s driving the trend?

So, what’s behind the embrace of “alternative facts,” as former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway put it so brazenly in 2017, in defending the White House’s false claims that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever?

Dr. Scheffer and colleagues identified a handful of things that have encouraged the embrace of falsehoods over facts in recent years.

• The Internet: Its rise in the late 1980s, and its growing role as a primary source of news and information, has allowed more belief-based misinformation to flourish and spread like wildfire.
• Social media: The new study found the use of sentiment- and intuition-related words accelerated around 2007, along with a global surge in social media that catapulted Facebook, Twitter, and others into the mainstream, replacing more traditional fact-based media (i.e., newspapers and magazines).
• The 2007 financial crisis: The downturn in the global economy meant more people were dealing with job stress, investment losses, and other problems that fed the interest in belief-based, anti-establishment social media posts.
• Conspiracy theories: Falsehoods involving hidden political agendas, shadow “elites,” and wealthy people with dark motives tend to thrive during times of crisis and societal anxiety. “Conspiracy theories originate particularly in times of uncertainty and crisis and generally depict established institutions as hiding the truth and sustaining an unfair situation,” the researchers noted. “As a result, they may find fertile grounds on social media platforms promulgating a sense of unfairness, subsequently feeding anti-system sentiments.”

Dr. Scheffer says that growing political divisions during the Trump era have widened the fact-vs.-fiction divide. The ex-president voiced many anti-science views on global climate change, for instance, and spread so many falsehoods about COVID-19 and the 2020 election that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts.

Yet Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans, with most saying in a December poll they believe his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” despite all credible, easily accessible evidence that it was secure, according to a recent poll by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

More than 60 courts have rejected Trump’s lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and both branches of Congress have certified the election results, giving Biden the White House. Even Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair.

Nevertheless, the University of Massachusetts survey found that most Republicans believe one or more conspiracy theories floated by the former president and those pushing his “big lie” that Democrats rigged the election to elect Biden.

Ed Berliner, an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist and media consultant, suggests something else is driving the spread of misinformation: the pursuit of ratings by cable TV and media companies to boost ad and subscriber revenues.

As a former executive producer and syndicated cable TV show host, he says he has seen firsthand how facts are often lost in opinion-driven news programs, even on network programs claiming to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.

“Propaganda is the new currency in America, and those who do not fight back against it are doomed to be overrun by the misinformation,” says Mr. Berliner, host of The Man in the Arena and CEO of Entourage Media LLC.

“The broadcast news media has to stop this incessant ‘infotainment’ prattle, stop trying to nuzzle up to a soft side, and bear down on hard facts, exposing the lies and refusing to back down.”
 

Public health implications

Public health and media experts alike say the PNAS study findings are disheartening but underscore the need for doctors and scientists to do a better job of communicating about COVID-19 and other pressing issues.

Dr. Limaye, from Johns Hopkins, is particularly concerned about the rise in conspiracy theories that has led to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

“When we speak to individuals about getting the COVID vaccine…the types of concerns that come up now are very different than they were 8 years ago,” she says. “The comments we used to hear were much more related to vaccine safety. [People] would say, ‘I’m worried about an ingredient in the vaccine’ or ‘I’m worried that my kiddo has to get three different shots within 6 months to have a series dose completed.’”

But now, a lot of comments they receive are about government and pharma conspiracies.

What that means is doctors and scientists must do more than simply say “here are the facts” and “trust me, I’m a doctor or a scientist,” she says. And these approaches don’t only apply to public health.

“It’s funny, because when we talk to climate change scientists, as vaccine [specialists], we’ll say we can’t believe that people think COVID is a hoax,” she says. “And they’re like, ‘Hold my beer, we’ve been dealing with this for 20 years. Hello, it’s just your guys’ turn to deal with this public denial of science.’”

Dr. Limaye is also concerned about the impacts on funding for scientific research.

“There’s always been a really strong bipartisan effort with regards to funding for science, when you look at Congress and when you look at appropriations,” she says. “But what ended up happening, especially with the Trump administration, was that there was a real shift in that. We’ve never really seen that before in past generations.”

So, what’s the big take-home message?

Dr. Limaye believes doctors and public health experts must show more empathy – and not be combative or arrogant – in communicating science in one-on-one conversations. This month, she’s launching a new course for parents, school administrators, and nurses on how to do precisely that.

“It’s really all about how to have hard conversations with people who might be anti-science,” she says. “It’s being empathetic and not being dismissive. But it’s hard work, and I think a lot of people are just not cut out for it and just don’t have the time for it…You can’t just say, ‘Well, this is science, and I’m a doctor’ – that doesn’t work anymore.”

Brendan Nyhan, PhD, a Dartmouth College political scientist, echoes those sentiments in a separate paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, he suggests that providing accurate, fact-based information to counter false claims may actually backfire and reinforce some people’s unfounded beliefs.

“One response to the prevalence of mistaken beliefs is to try to set the record straight by providing accurate information – for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change,” he writes. “The failures of this approach, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ in science communication, are well-known.”

Dr. Nyhan argues two things make some people more prone to believe falsehoods:

What scientists call “ingrouping,” a kind of tribal mentality that makes some people choose social identity or politics over truth-seeking and demonize others who don’t agree with their views

The rise of high-profile political figures, such as Trump, who encourage their followers to indulge in their desire for “identify-affirming misinformation”

Dr. Scheffer says the most important thing for doctors, health experts, and scientists to recognize is that it’s crucial to gain the trust of someone who may believe fictions over facts to make any persuasive argument on COVID-19 or any other issue.

He also has a standard response to those who present falsehoods to him as facts that he suggests anyone can use: “That is interesting. Would you mind helping me understand how you came to that opinion?”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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