Clinician Reviews

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

Traci Sikes’s older sister Debbie had survived several health setbacks in life – a heart attack, a cancer diagnosis, and a couple of botched surgeries for a bad back. But by early 2023, the 68-year-old from Brownwood, Tex., was in remission from lymphoma, feeling stronger, and celebrating a birthday for one of her 11 beloved grandchildren. 

Then Debbie caught COVID-19. Less than 2 months later, in March, she died of severe lung damage caused by the coronavirus.

Traci was able to make the trip from her home in Washington state to Texas to be with Debbie before she died. She was grateful that she arrived while her sister was still lucid and to hear her sister’s last word – “love” – spoken to one of her grandchildren before she took her final breath.

“My sister was wonderful,” Sikes said. “And she shouldn’t be gone.” 

Just 6 months after President Joe Biden declared last fall that “the pandemic is over,” Debbie’s death was a painful reminder to Traci and her family that COVID hasn’t actually gone anywhere. Just as both the World Health Organization and U.S. government recently ended the 3-year-old coronavirus public health emergency, COVID is still killing more than 100 people every day in the U.S., according to the CDC, and amid widespread efforts to move on and drop protective measures, the country’s most vulnerable people are still at significant risk.

The prevailing attitude that we need to learn to live with the current level of risk feels like a “slap in the face,” for COVID grievers who have already paid the price,” said Sabila Khan, who cofounded a Facebook group for COVID loss support, which now has more than 14,000 members. 

It also minimizes the continuing loss of life and that so many people are still dying traumatic and unnecessary deaths, she said.

“It feels like it’s been brushed aside,” she said. “Like, ‘It’s business as usual. It’s over. Take off your mask.’ My family and I are still masked, and we’re probably the only ones masked in any given room.”

The abandoning of protective measures also fails to recognize the ongoing and catastrophic risks of long COVID and the experiences of an estimated 26 million people in the U.S. living with long COVID.

“It’s been drummed into us that death is the only serious outcome [of the virus] and we still haven’t made enough space for the idea that long COVID is a very serious outcome,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who has helped care for thousands of patients with long COVID.
 

Historic drop in life expectancy

More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID over the past 3 years, and experts say the official numbers are likely underestimated because of errors in death certificate reporting. Although deaths have waned from earlier in the pandemic, the disease has become the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” such as drug overdoses.

What makes these deaths all the more tragic is that COVID is a preventable disease, said Carla Sevin, MD, a critical care doctor and director of the Pulmonary Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. Masking, available vaccines, and social distancing have all been shown to significantly lower the risk of spreading and catching the virus. New drugs have also made it possible for infected people to survive COVID.

“It’s possible to not spread COVID,” she said. “It’s possible to protect yourself against COVID. It’s possible to treat COVID. And we’re doing all of those things imperfectly.”

By the end of 2021, Americans overall were dying 3 years sooner, on average, than they were before the pandemic, with life expectancy dropping from 79 years to 76 years, the largest decline in a century. 

Globally, the COVID death toll is nearing 7 million. Across all ages, on average, each person who died passed away 10 years younger than they otherwise would have. That’s tens of millions of years wiped away.

As U.S. surgeon and health researcher Atul Gawande, MD, put it in a New York Times essay about the pandemic response: “Human development has been pushed into reverse.”
 

What is an acceptable threshold of death?

In the United States, more than 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Underlying medical conditions and disabilities also raise the risk of severe illness and dying from COVID. 

The virus is also disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people and those with less access to health care. Racialized groups are dying from COVID at younger ages. COVID advocates and Americans who’ve lost loved ones to the disease say our willingness to accept these facts and the current mortality rate amounts to health-based discrimination.

“Would politicians be approaching this differently had it mostly affected rich white people?” Ms. Khan said. 

Ms. Khan’s dad, Shafqat, was an advocate and community organizer for Pakistani immigrants. After contracting COVID, he was rushed to a hospital near his daughter’s Jersey City, N.J.,  home from a rehab facility where he was being treated for an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease. For the 8 days her father was in the hospital, she and other family members couldn’t visit him, and he wasn’t even well enough to talk on the phone. He died from COVID in April 2020.

“My father was an extraordinary person who did so much good and he died alone, terrified in a hospital,” she said. “I can’t even wrap my head around that and how he deserved more. No one deserves that.”

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works as a critical care doctor, COVID deaths are now different from those in the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Sevin said. Most patients now in the intensive care unit are older and immunocompromised – and they tend to blend in more with others in the intensive care unit. That makes the impact of COVID even more hidden and easily ignored.

“It’s easy not to value somebody who’s an invisible number you don’t know,” she said. “You don’t see them writing their will and talking to their best friend. You don’t see the tears rolling down their face because they know what’s going to happen to them and they’re going to asphyxiate to death.” 

One COVID patient who died recently in Dr. Sevin’s ICU ward was an older woman who had no living relatives. “She was very, very lonely, and we would always stand outside the door on rounds, and she would motion for us to come in, but we had to then all gown up,” Dr. Sevin said. “It just breaks your heart that people are still having to go through it.”

Dr. Sevin finds it frustrating that so many of the measures that public health officials fought so hard for over the last 3 years – including masking guidelines, government-funded vaccine clinics, and access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications – are now going away because of the lifting of the pandemic emergency declaration.

What makes matters worse, she said, is that public consciousness about taking precautions to protect others is starting to disappear in favor of an “all or nothing attitude” about the continued risks. 

“Like either I’m going to stay home and be a hermit, or I’m going to just throw caution to the wind and go to bars and let people yell in my face,” she said. “We learned some hard lessons, and I wish we could hold onto those.”

Americans like Traci Sikes who’ve lost loved ones and health care workers on the front lines say it is particularly frustrating that so many people are framing the current response to the risks of COVID as “personal choice” over responsibility to others, as well as a sense of fatalism and lack of urgent care.

“Why does nobody seem to be angry about this?” Ms. Sikes said. “People talk about COVID like it’s just another thing to die from. But my sister didn’t have to die from it at all.”

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

Traci Sikes’s older sister Debbie had survived several health setbacks in life – a heart attack, a cancer diagnosis, and a couple of botched surgeries for a bad back. But by early 2023, the 68-year-old from Brownwood, Tex., was in remission from lymphoma, feeling stronger, and celebrating a birthday for one of her 11 beloved grandchildren. 

Then Debbie caught COVID-19. Less than 2 months later, in March, she died of severe lung damage caused by the coronavirus.

Traci was able to make the trip from her home in Washington state to Texas to be with Debbie before she died. She was grateful that she arrived while her sister was still lucid and to hear her sister’s last word – “love” – spoken to one of her grandchildren before she took her final breath.

“My sister was wonderful,” Sikes said. “And she shouldn’t be gone.” 

Just 6 months after President Joe Biden declared last fall that “the pandemic is over,” Debbie’s death was a painful reminder to Traci and her family that COVID hasn’t actually gone anywhere. Just as both the World Health Organization and U.S. government recently ended the 3-year-old coronavirus public health emergency, COVID is still killing more than 100 people every day in the U.S., according to the CDC, and amid widespread efforts to move on and drop protective measures, the country’s most vulnerable people are still at significant risk.

The prevailing attitude that we need to learn to live with the current level of risk feels like a “slap in the face,” for COVID grievers who have already paid the price,” said Sabila Khan, who cofounded a Facebook group for COVID loss support, which now has more than 14,000 members. 

It also minimizes the continuing loss of life and that so many people are still dying traumatic and unnecessary deaths, she said.

“It feels like it’s been brushed aside,” she said. “Like, ‘It’s business as usual. It’s over. Take off your mask.’ My family and I are still masked, and we’re probably the only ones masked in any given room.”

The abandoning of protective measures also fails to recognize the ongoing and catastrophic risks of long COVID and the experiences of an estimated 26 million people in the U.S. living with long COVID.

“It’s been drummed into us that death is the only serious outcome [of the virus] and we still haven’t made enough space for the idea that long COVID is a very serious outcome,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who has helped care for thousands of patients with long COVID.
 

Historic drop in life expectancy

More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID over the past 3 years, and experts say the official numbers are likely underestimated because of errors in death certificate reporting. Although deaths have waned from earlier in the pandemic, the disease has become the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” such as drug overdoses.

What makes these deaths all the more tragic is that COVID is a preventable disease, said Carla Sevin, MD, a critical care doctor and director of the Pulmonary Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. Masking, available vaccines, and social distancing have all been shown to significantly lower the risk of spreading and catching the virus. New drugs have also made it possible for infected people to survive COVID.

“It’s possible to not spread COVID,” she said. “It’s possible to protect yourself against COVID. It’s possible to treat COVID. And we’re doing all of those things imperfectly.”

By the end of 2021, Americans overall were dying 3 years sooner, on average, than they were before the pandemic, with life expectancy dropping from 79 years to 76 years, the largest decline in a century. 

Globally, the COVID death toll is nearing 7 million. Across all ages, on average, each person who died passed away 10 years younger than they otherwise would have. That’s tens of millions of years wiped away.

As U.S. surgeon and health researcher Atul Gawande, MD, put it in a New York Times essay about the pandemic response: “Human development has been pushed into reverse.”
 

What is an acceptable threshold of death?

In the United States, more than 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Underlying medical conditions and disabilities also raise the risk of severe illness and dying from COVID. 

The virus is also disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people and those with less access to health care. Racialized groups are dying from COVID at younger ages. COVID advocates and Americans who’ve lost loved ones to the disease say our willingness to accept these facts and the current mortality rate amounts to health-based discrimination.

“Would politicians be approaching this differently had it mostly affected rich white people?” Ms. Khan said. 

Ms. Khan’s dad, Shafqat, was an advocate and community organizer for Pakistani immigrants. After contracting COVID, he was rushed to a hospital near his daughter’s Jersey City, N.J.,  home from a rehab facility where he was being treated for an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease. For the 8 days her father was in the hospital, she and other family members couldn’t visit him, and he wasn’t even well enough to talk on the phone. He died from COVID in April 2020.

“My father was an extraordinary person who did so much good and he died alone, terrified in a hospital,” she said. “I can’t even wrap my head around that and how he deserved more. No one deserves that.”

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works as a critical care doctor, COVID deaths are now different from those in the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Sevin said. Most patients now in the intensive care unit are older and immunocompromised – and they tend to blend in more with others in the intensive care unit. That makes the impact of COVID even more hidden and easily ignored.

“It’s easy not to value somebody who’s an invisible number you don’t know,” she said. “You don’t see them writing their will and talking to their best friend. You don’t see the tears rolling down their face because they know what’s going to happen to them and they’re going to asphyxiate to death.” 

One COVID patient who died recently in Dr. Sevin’s ICU ward was an older woman who had no living relatives. “She was very, very lonely, and we would always stand outside the door on rounds, and she would motion for us to come in, but we had to then all gown up,” Dr. Sevin said. “It just breaks your heart that people are still having to go through it.”

Dr. Sevin finds it frustrating that so many of the measures that public health officials fought so hard for over the last 3 years – including masking guidelines, government-funded vaccine clinics, and access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications – are now going away because of the lifting of the pandemic emergency declaration.

What makes matters worse, she said, is that public consciousness about taking precautions to protect others is starting to disappear in favor of an “all or nothing attitude” about the continued risks. 

“Like either I’m going to stay home and be a hermit, or I’m going to just throw caution to the wind and go to bars and let people yell in my face,” she said. “We learned some hard lessons, and I wish we could hold onto those.”

Americans like Traci Sikes who’ve lost loved ones and health care workers on the front lines say it is particularly frustrating that so many people are framing the current response to the risks of COVID as “personal choice” over responsibility to others, as well as a sense of fatalism and lack of urgent care.

“Why does nobody seem to be angry about this?” Ms. Sikes said. “People talk about COVID like it’s just another thing to die from. But my sister didn’t have to die from it at all.”

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

Traci Sikes’s older sister Debbie had survived several health setbacks in life – a heart attack, a cancer diagnosis, and a couple of botched surgeries for a bad back. But by early 2023, the 68-year-old from Brownwood, Tex., was in remission from lymphoma, feeling stronger, and celebrating a birthday for one of her 11 beloved grandchildren. 

Then Debbie caught COVID-19. Less than 2 months later, in March, she died of severe lung damage caused by the coronavirus.

Traci was able to make the trip from her home in Washington state to Texas to be with Debbie before she died. She was grateful that she arrived while her sister was still lucid and to hear her sister’s last word – “love” – spoken to one of her grandchildren before she took her final breath.

“My sister was wonderful,” Sikes said. “And she shouldn’t be gone.” 

Just 6 months after President Joe Biden declared last fall that “the pandemic is over,” Debbie’s death was a painful reminder to Traci and her family that COVID hasn’t actually gone anywhere. Just as both the World Health Organization and U.S. government recently ended the 3-year-old coronavirus public health emergency, COVID is still killing more than 100 people every day in the U.S., according to the CDC, and amid widespread efforts to move on and drop protective measures, the country’s most vulnerable people are still at significant risk.

The prevailing attitude that we need to learn to live with the current level of risk feels like a “slap in the face,” for COVID grievers who have already paid the price,” said Sabila Khan, who cofounded a Facebook group for COVID loss support, which now has more than 14,000 members. 

It also minimizes the continuing loss of life and that so many people are still dying traumatic and unnecessary deaths, she said.

“It feels like it’s been brushed aside,” she said. “Like, ‘It’s business as usual. It’s over. Take off your mask.’ My family and I are still masked, and we’re probably the only ones masked in any given room.”

The abandoning of protective measures also fails to recognize the ongoing and catastrophic risks of long COVID and the experiences of an estimated 26 million people in the U.S. living with long COVID.

“It’s been drummed into us that death is the only serious outcome [of the virus] and we still haven’t made enough space for the idea that long COVID is a very serious outcome,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who has helped care for thousands of patients with long COVID.
 

Historic drop in life expectancy

More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID over the past 3 years, and experts say the official numbers are likely underestimated because of errors in death certificate reporting. Although deaths have waned from earlier in the pandemic, the disease has become the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” such as drug overdoses.

What makes these deaths all the more tragic is that COVID is a preventable disease, said Carla Sevin, MD, a critical care doctor and director of the Pulmonary Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. Masking, available vaccines, and social distancing have all been shown to significantly lower the risk of spreading and catching the virus. New drugs have also made it possible for infected people to survive COVID.

“It’s possible to not spread COVID,” she said. “It’s possible to protect yourself against COVID. It’s possible to treat COVID. And we’re doing all of those things imperfectly.”

By the end of 2021, Americans overall were dying 3 years sooner, on average, than they were before the pandemic, with life expectancy dropping from 79 years to 76 years, the largest decline in a century. 

Globally, the COVID death toll is nearing 7 million. Across all ages, on average, each person who died passed away 10 years younger than they otherwise would have. That’s tens of millions of years wiped away.

As U.S. surgeon and health researcher Atul Gawande, MD, put it in a New York Times essay about the pandemic response: “Human development has been pushed into reverse.”
 

What is an acceptable threshold of death?

In the United States, more than 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Underlying medical conditions and disabilities also raise the risk of severe illness and dying from COVID. 

The virus is also disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people and those with less access to health care. Racialized groups are dying from COVID at younger ages. COVID advocates and Americans who’ve lost loved ones to the disease say our willingness to accept these facts and the current mortality rate amounts to health-based discrimination.

“Would politicians be approaching this differently had it mostly affected rich white people?” Ms. Khan said. 

Ms. Khan’s dad, Shafqat, was an advocate and community organizer for Pakistani immigrants. After contracting COVID, he was rushed to a hospital near his daughter’s Jersey City, N.J.,  home from a rehab facility where he was being treated for an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease. For the 8 days her father was in the hospital, she and other family members couldn’t visit him, and he wasn’t even well enough to talk on the phone. He died from COVID in April 2020.

“My father was an extraordinary person who did so much good and he died alone, terrified in a hospital,” she said. “I can’t even wrap my head around that and how he deserved more. No one deserves that.”

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works as a critical care doctor, COVID deaths are now different from those in the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Sevin said. Most patients now in the intensive care unit are older and immunocompromised – and they tend to blend in more with others in the intensive care unit. That makes the impact of COVID even more hidden and easily ignored.

“It’s easy not to value somebody who’s an invisible number you don’t know,” she said. “You don’t see them writing their will and talking to their best friend. You don’t see the tears rolling down their face because they know what’s going to happen to them and they’re going to asphyxiate to death.” 

One COVID patient who died recently in Dr. Sevin’s ICU ward was an older woman who had no living relatives. “She was very, very lonely, and we would always stand outside the door on rounds, and she would motion for us to come in, but we had to then all gown up,” Dr. Sevin said. “It just breaks your heart that people are still having to go through it.”

Dr. Sevin finds it frustrating that so many of the measures that public health officials fought so hard for over the last 3 years – including masking guidelines, government-funded vaccine clinics, and access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications – are now going away because of the lifting of the pandemic emergency declaration.

What makes matters worse, she said, is that public consciousness about taking precautions to protect others is starting to disappear in favor of an “all or nothing attitude” about the continued risks. 

“Like either I’m going to stay home and be a hermit, or I’m going to just throw caution to the wind and go to bars and let people yell in my face,” she said. “We learned some hard lessons, and I wish we could hold onto those.”

Americans like Traci Sikes who’ve lost loved ones and health care workers on the front lines say it is particularly frustrating that so many people are framing the current response to the risks of COVID as “personal choice” over responsibility to others, as well as a sense of fatalism and lack of urgent care.

“Why does nobody seem to be angry about this?” Ms. Sikes said. “People talk about COVID like it’s just another thing to die from. But my sister didn’t have to die from it at all.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

Last month, I described a 28-year-old patient with a history of injection drug use who presented with pain in his left forearm. His history showed that, within the past 2 years, he’d been seen for cutaneous infections multiple times as an outpatient and in the emergency department. His records indicated that he was diagnosed with a penicillin allergy as a child when he developed a rash after receiving amoxicillin. I believed the next course of action should be to test for a penicillin allergy with an oral amoxicillin challenge.
 

Thank you for your excellent questions regarding this case. Great to hear the enthusiasm for testing for penicillin allergy!

One question focused on the course of action in the case of a mild or moderate IgE-mediated reaction after a single dose test with amoxicillin. Treatment for these reactions should include an antihistamine. I would reserve intravenous antihistamines for more severe cases, which also require treatment with a course of corticosteroids. However, the risk for a moderate to severe reaction to amoxicillin on retesting is quite low.

Clinicians need to exercise caution in the use of systemic corticosteroids. These drugs can be lifesaving, but even short courses of corticosteroids are associated with potentially serious adverse events. In a review of adverse events associated with short-course systemic corticosteroids among children, the rate of vomiting was 5.4%; behavioral change, 4.7%; and sleep disturbance, 4.3%. One child died after contracting herpes zoster, more than one-third of children developed elevated blood pressure, and 81.1% had evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Among adults, short courses of systemic corticosteroids are associated with acute increases in the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension. Cumulative exposure to short courses of corticosteroids over time results in higher risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Another question prompted by this young man’s case focused on the durability of IgE reactions against penicillin. The IgE response to penicillin does indeed wane over time; 80% of patients with a previous true penicillin allergy can tolerate the antibiotic after 10 years. Thus, about 95% of patients with a remote history of penicillin allergy are tolerant of penicillin, and testing can be performed using the algorithm described.

Clinicians should avoid applying current guidelines for the evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy to other common drug allergies. The overall prevalence of sulfonamide allergy is 3%-8%, and the vast majority of these reactions follow treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulfa allergy is even more common among persons living with HIV infection. The natural history of sulfa allergy is not as well established as penicillin allergy. Allergy testing is encouraged in these cases. Graded oral challenge testing is best reserved for patients who are unlikely to have a true sulfa allergy based on their history.

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

Last month, I described a 28-year-old patient with a history of injection drug use who presented with pain in his left forearm. His history showed that, within the past 2 years, he’d been seen for cutaneous infections multiple times as an outpatient and in the emergency department. His records indicated that he was diagnosed with a penicillin allergy as a child when he developed a rash after receiving amoxicillin. I believed the next course of action should be to test for a penicillin allergy with an oral amoxicillin challenge.
 

Thank you for your excellent questions regarding this case. Great to hear the enthusiasm for testing for penicillin allergy!

One question focused on the course of action in the case of a mild or moderate IgE-mediated reaction after a single dose test with amoxicillin. Treatment for these reactions should include an antihistamine. I would reserve intravenous antihistamines for more severe cases, which also require treatment with a course of corticosteroids. However, the risk for a moderate to severe reaction to amoxicillin on retesting is quite low.

Clinicians need to exercise caution in the use of systemic corticosteroids. These drugs can be lifesaving, but even short courses of corticosteroids are associated with potentially serious adverse events. In a review of adverse events associated with short-course systemic corticosteroids among children, the rate of vomiting was 5.4%; behavioral change, 4.7%; and sleep disturbance, 4.3%. One child died after contracting herpes zoster, more than one-third of children developed elevated blood pressure, and 81.1% had evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Among adults, short courses of systemic corticosteroids are associated with acute increases in the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension. Cumulative exposure to short courses of corticosteroids over time results in higher risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Another question prompted by this young man’s case focused on the durability of IgE reactions against penicillin. The IgE response to penicillin does indeed wane over time; 80% of patients with a previous true penicillin allergy can tolerate the antibiotic after 10 years. Thus, about 95% of patients with a remote history of penicillin allergy are tolerant of penicillin, and testing can be performed using the algorithm described.

Clinicians should avoid applying current guidelines for the evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy to other common drug allergies. The overall prevalence of sulfonamide allergy is 3%-8%, and the vast majority of these reactions follow treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulfa allergy is even more common among persons living with HIV infection. The natural history of sulfa allergy is not as well established as penicillin allergy. Allergy testing is encouraged in these cases. Graded oral challenge testing is best reserved for patients who are unlikely to have a true sulfa allergy based on their history.

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

Last month, I described a 28-year-old patient with a history of injection drug use who presented with pain in his left forearm. His history showed that, within the past 2 years, he’d been seen for cutaneous infections multiple times as an outpatient and in the emergency department. His records indicated that he was diagnosed with a penicillin allergy as a child when he developed a rash after receiving amoxicillin. I believed the next course of action should be to test for a penicillin allergy with an oral amoxicillin challenge.
 

Thank you for your excellent questions regarding this case. Great to hear the enthusiasm for testing for penicillin allergy!

One question focused on the course of action in the case of a mild or moderate IgE-mediated reaction after a single dose test with amoxicillin. Treatment for these reactions should include an antihistamine. I would reserve intravenous antihistamines for more severe cases, which also require treatment with a course of corticosteroids. However, the risk for a moderate to severe reaction to amoxicillin on retesting is quite low.

Clinicians need to exercise caution in the use of systemic corticosteroids. These drugs can be lifesaving, but even short courses of corticosteroids are associated with potentially serious adverse events. In a review of adverse events associated with short-course systemic corticosteroids among children, the rate of vomiting was 5.4%; behavioral change, 4.7%; and sleep disturbance, 4.3%. One child died after contracting herpes zoster, more than one-third of children developed elevated blood pressure, and 81.1% had evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Among adults, short courses of systemic corticosteroids are associated with acute increases in the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension. Cumulative exposure to short courses of corticosteroids over time results in higher risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Another question prompted by this young man’s case focused on the durability of IgE reactions against penicillin. The IgE response to penicillin does indeed wane over time; 80% of patients with a previous true penicillin allergy can tolerate the antibiotic after 10 years. Thus, about 95% of patients with a remote history of penicillin allergy are tolerant of penicillin, and testing can be performed using the algorithm described.

Clinicians should avoid applying current guidelines for the evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy to other common drug allergies. The overall prevalence of sulfonamide allergy is 3%-8%, and the vast majority of these reactions follow treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulfa allergy is even more common among persons living with HIV infection. The natural history of sulfa allergy is not as well established as penicillin allergy. Allergy testing is encouraged in these cases. Graded oral challenge testing is best reserved for patients who are unlikely to have a true sulfa allergy based on their history.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

A broad shave biopsy was performed at the base of the lesion and the results were consistent with a thick nodular melanoma with a Breslow depth of 5.5 mm.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer in the United States with mortality risk corresponding with the depth of the tumor.¹ Nodular melanomas grow faster than all other types of melanoma. For this reason, a concerning raised lesion with a risk of melanoma should not be observed for change over time; it should be biopsied promptly. In this case, a depth of 5.5 mm was cause for quick action. Patients with tumors > 1 mm in depth (and some tumors > 0.8 mm) should be offered sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) along with wide local excision to evaluate for lymphatic spread. Patients with thinner tumors may undergo wide local excision without SLNB.

In this case, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines would dictate a 2-cm margin for a wide local incision; the patient underwent a modified version of this with Surgical Oncology to accommodate maintenance of hand function. This patient’s SLNB was negative, so the melanoma was classified as Stage IIC.

In the recent past, there were no additional treatments for patients with late Stage II disease (thick tumors without evidence of metastasis). However, in December 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab in patients with node-negative late Stage II melanoma after demonstration of improved recurrence-free survival in the KEYNOTE trial.² Evidence of improved long-term survival is mixed with adjuvant therapy, and studies evaluating the best role of adjuvant therapy are ongoing.

This patient was started on a regimen of pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, which he will continue for as long as 1 year. He has tolerated this regimen without difficulty and has no evidence of disease.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A broad shave biopsy was performed at the base of the lesion and the results were consistent with a thick nodular melanoma with a Breslow depth of 5.5 mm.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer in the United States with mortality risk corresponding with the depth of the tumor.¹ Nodular melanomas grow faster than all other types of melanoma. For this reason, a concerning raised lesion with a risk of melanoma should not be observed for change over time; it should be biopsied promptly. In this case, a depth of 5.5 mm was cause for quick action. Patients with tumors > 1 mm in depth (and some tumors > 0.8 mm) should be offered sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) along with wide local excision to evaluate for lymphatic spread. Patients with thinner tumors may undergo wide local excision without SLNB.

In this case, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines would dictate a 2-cm margin for a wide local incision; the patient underwent a modified version of this with Surgical Oncology to accommodate maintenance of hand function. This patient’s SLNB was negative, so the melanoma was classified as Stage IIC.

In the recent past, there were no additional treatments for patients with late Stage II disease (thick tumors without evidence of metastasis). However, in December 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab in patients with node-negative late Stage II melanoma after demonstration of improved recurrence-free survival in the KEYNOTE trial.² Evidence of improved long-term survival is mixed with adjuvant therapy, and studies evaluating the best role of adjuvant therapy are ongoing.

This patient was started on a regimen of pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, which he will continue for as long as 1 year. He has tolerated this regimen without difficulty and has no evidence of disease.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

A broad shave biopsy was performed at the base of the lesion and the results were consistent with a thick nodular melanoma with a Breslow depth of 5.5 mm.

Melanoma is the deadliest skin cancer in the United States with mortality risk corresponding with the depth of the tumor.¹ Nodular melanomas grow faster than all other types of melanoma. For this reason, a concerning raised lesion with a risk of melanoma should not be observed for change over time; it should be biopsied promptly. In this case, a depth of 5.5 mm was cause for quick action. Patients with tumors > 1 mm in depth (and some tumors > 0.8 mm) should be offered sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) along with wide local excision to evaluate for lymphatic spread. Patients with thinner tumors may undergo wide local excision without SLNB.

In this case, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines would dictate a 2-cm margin for a wide local incision; the patient underwent a modified version of this with Surgical Oncology to accommodate maintenance of hand function. This patient’s SLNB was negative, so the melanoma was classified as Stage IIC.

In the recent past, there were no additional treatments for patients with late Stage II disease (thick tumors without evidence of metastasis). However, in December 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab in patients with node-negative late Stage II melanoma after demonstration of improved recurrence-free survival in the KEYNOTE trial.² Evidence of improved long-term survival is mixed with adjuvant therapy, and studies evaluating the best role of adjuvant therapy are ongoing.

This patient was started on a regimen of pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, which he will continue for as long as 1 year. He has tolerated this regimen without difficulty and has no evidence of disease.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The biopsy revealed abundant lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous B cell pseudolymphoma. The pseudolymphoma was caused by an exaggerated response to a tick bite.

As the name implies, B cell pseudolymphomas clinically and histologically mimic the various patterns of cutaneous lymphoma, often appearing as a firm, pink to dark violet nodule. A biopsy is mandatory to distinguish between pseudolymphoma and true lymphoma. There is an association between pseudolymphomas and Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. Thus, testing for Lyme disease is recommended for patients with pseudolymphomas who live in endemic areas. Patients who test positive should be treated with doxycycline 100 mg bid for 10 days.

In the absence of Lyme disease, a pseudolymphoma may resolve spontaneously over weeks or months. Resolution can be hastened with topical superpotent steroids, intralesional steroids, or systemic steroids. Treatment can begin with topical clobetasol 0.05% bid. If the lesion does not resolve, the next step would be intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL injected directly into the nodule until it blanches slightly. Injections should be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks for a total of 2 to 3 injections.

The patient in this case had negative Lyme serology and was treated with 2 injections of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL administered 3 weeks apart. She experienced complete resolution.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The biopsy revealed abundant lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous B cell pseudolymphoma. The pseudolymphoma was caused by an exaggerated response to a tick bite.

As the name implies, B cell pseudolymphomas clinically and histologically mimic the various patterns of cutaneous lymphoma, often appearing as a firm, pink to dark violet nodule. A biopsy is mandatory to distinguish between pseudolymphoma and true lymphoma. There is an association between pseudolymphomas and Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. Thus, testing for Lyme disease is recommended for patients with pseudolymphomas who live in endemic areas. Patients who test positive should be treated with doxycycline 100 mg bid for 10 days.

In the absence of Lyme disease, a pseudolymphoma may resolve spontaneously over weeks or months. Resolution can be hastened with topical superpotent steroids, intralesional steroids, or systemic steroids. Treatment can begin with topical clobetasol 0.05% bid. If the lesion does not resolve, the next step would be intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL injected directly into the nodule until it blanches slightly. Injections should be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks for a total of 2 to 3 injections.

The patient in this case had negative Lyme serology and was treated with 2 injections of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL administered 3 weeks apart. She experienced complete resolution.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The biopsy revealed abundant lymphocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous B cell pseudolymphoma. The pseudolymphoma was caused by an exaggerated response to a tick bite.

As the name implies, B cell pseudolymphomas clinically and histologically mimic the various patterns of cutaneous lymphoma, often appearing as a firm, pink to dark violet nodule. A biopsy is mandatory to distinguish between pseudolymphoma and true lymphoma. There is an association between pseudolymphomas and Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism responsible for Lyme disease. Thus, testing for Lyme disease is recommended for patients with pseudolymphomas who live in endemic areas. Patients who test positive should be treated with doxycycline 100 mg bid for 10 days.

In the absence of Lyme disease, a pseudolymphoma may resolve spontaneously over weeks or months. Resolution can be hastened with topical superpotent steroids, intralesional steroids, or systemic steroids. Treatment can begin with topical clobetasol 0.05% bid. If the lesion does not resolve, the next step would be intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL injected directly into the nodule until it blanches slightly. Injections should be repeated every 3 to 4 weeks for a total of 2 to 3 injections.

The patient in this case had negative Lyme serology and was treated with 2 injections of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL administered 3 weeks apart. She experienced complete resolution.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.