Clinician Reviews

The patient’s recurrent indurated nodules under her arms and other intertriginous areas, often draining pus, are consistent with a diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

HS is a chronic inflammatory and suppurative skin condition that primarily involves the sweat glands.¹ The most commonly affected sites are intertriginous areas that include the axillae, groin, and perianal and inframammary regions.² Prevalence of this disorder ranges from 0.05% to 4.1% of the population with an onset from puberty to adulthood, usually at around 40 years of age.³ Its incidence is twice as high in women as men and is more common in Black individuals.^4,5

While its pathogenesis is not fully understood, it’s believed that excess proliferation of keratinocytes contributes to occlusion, leading to plugging of hair follicle ducts. Hormones, smoking, and obesity may contribute to and exacerbate HS. Intertriginous areas are prone to friction, leading to inflammation and further clogging.

The inflammation evolves into a chronic foreign body-type granulomatous inflammation with the potential for rupture, tunneling, and draining sinuses, which, although malodorous, are sterile, separating HS from an infected abscess.⁵ The result is thick, dense, scarred tissue.

The diagnosis is clinical in nature, with the history and physical exam distinguishing it from other skin disorders. In addition to the recurring physical pain, there is the emotional distress and self-consciousness about the drainage, odor, and scarring. This particular patient said that she avoided wearing sleeveless shirts due to the lesions’ appearance.

Treatment is multifactorial. Smoking and obesity are contributory factors, so smoking cessation and weight loss are recommended. For very mild HS, topical clindamycin 1% twice daily may suffice, but usually, due to the amount of inflammation, oral antibiotics are the initial therapy. (The use of antibiotics is for their anti-inflammatory component, as the nodules and unruptured tracts are sterile.)

Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily is the usual starting systemic antibiotic. In more severe or resistant cases, a combination of clindamycin and rifampin 300 mg each twice daily is used. (Worth noting: Rifampin interacts with oral contraceptives and many of these patients are women of reproductive age.) Treatment length is usually long (10 to 12 weeks) and recurrence is common.³

Spironolactone 100 mg daily and metformin 1000 mg extended release daily, which reduces insulin resistance, may be helpful. Intralesional injections of 10 mg/mL of triamcinolone in sterile saline can relieve the painful inflamed tracts. Referral for biologic agents, including infliximab, may be needed in severe cases that do not respond to other measures. Although invasive, wide debridement of the diseased tissue can reduce the disease burden.⁶

This particular patient said that she’d stopped smoking 3 years earlier and would work on losing weight. She was prescribed topical clindamycin 1% lotion twice daily along with oral clindamycin and rifampin dosed as above for 3 months. She declined metformin and intralesional injections. At a follow-up appointment 3 weeks later, she was pleased with the decrease in inflammation and had only 1 remaining tender area of fluctuance. She again declined injections and planned to continue on her oral and topical antibiotics.

‌

Photo courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP. Text courtesy of Derissa F. Raynold, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The patient’s recurrent indurated nodules under her arms and other intertriginous areas, often draining pus, are consistent with a diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

HS is a chronic inflammatory and suppurative skin condition that primarily involves the sweat glands.¹ The most commonly affected sites are intertriginous areas that include the axillae, groin, and perianal and inframammary regions.² Prevalence of this disorder ranges from 0.05% to 4.1% of the population with an onset from puberty to adulthood, usually at around 40 years of age.³ Its incidence is twice as high in women as men and is more common in Black individuals.^4,5

While its pathogenesis is not fully understood, it’s believed that excess proliferation of keratinocytes contributes to occlusion, leading to plugging of hair follicle ducts. Hormones, smoking, and obesity may contribute to and exacerbate HS. Intertriginous areas are prone to friction, leading to inflammation and further clogging.

The inflammation evolves into a chronic foreign body-type granulomatous inflammation with the potential for rupture, tunneling, and draining sinuses, which, although malodorous, are sterile, separating HS from an infected abscess.⁵ The result is thick, dense, scarred tissue.

The diagnosis is clinical in nature, with the history and physical exam distinguishing it from other skin disorders. In addition to the recurring physical pain, there is the emotional distress and self-consciousness about the drainage, odor, and scarring. This particular patient said that she avoided wearing sleeveless shirts due to the lesions’ appearance.

Treatment is multifactorial. Smoking and obesity are contributory factors, so smoking cessation and weight loss are recommended. For very mild HS, topical clindamycin 1% twice daily may suffice, but usually, due to the amount of inflammation, oral antibiotics are the initial therapy. (The use of antibiotics is for their anti-inflammatory component, as the nodules and unruptured tracts are sterile.)

Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily is the usual starting systemic antibiotic. In more severe or resistant cases, a combination of clindamycin and rifampin 300 mg each twice daily is used. (Worth noting: Rifampin interacts with oral contraceptives and many of these patients are women of reproductive age.) Treatment length is usually long (10 to 12 weeks) and recurrence is common.³

Spironolactone 100 mg daily and metformin 1000 mg extended release daily, which reduces insulin resistance, may be helpful. Intralesional injections of 10 mg/mL of triamcinolone in sterile saline can relieve the painful inflamed tracts. Referral for biologic agents, including infliximab, may be needed in severe cases that do not respond to other measures. Although invasive, wide debridement of the diseased tissue can reduce the disease burden.⁶

This particular patient said that she’d stopped smoking 3 years earlier and would work on losing weight. She was prescribed topical clindamycin 1% lotion twice daily along with oral clindamycin and rifampin dosed as above for 3 months. She declined metformin and intralesional injections. At a follow-up appointment 3 weeks later, she was pleased with the decrease in inflammation and had only 1 remaining tender area of fluctuance. She again declined injections and planned to continue on her oral and topical antibiotics.

‌

Photo courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP. Text courtesy of Derissa F. Raynold, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The patient’s recurrent indurated nodules under her arms and other intertriginous areas, often draining pus, are consistent with a diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

HS is a chronic inflammatory and suppurative skin condition that primarily involves the sweat glands.¹ The most commonly affected sites are intertriginous areas that include the axillae, groin, and perianal and inframammary regions.² Prevalence of this disorder ranges from 0.05% to 4.1% of the population with an onset from puberty to adulthood, usually at around 40 years of age.³ Its incidence is twice as high in women as men and is more common in Black individuals.^4,5

While its pathogenesis is not fully understood, it’s believed that excess proliferation of keratinocytes contributes to occlusion, leading to plugging of hair follicle ducts. Hormones, smoking, and obesity may contribute to and exacerbate HS. Intertriginous areas are prone to friction, leading to inflammation and further clogging.

The inflammation evolves into a chronic foreign body-type granulomatous inflammation with the potential for rupture, tunneling, and draining sinuses, which, although malodorous, are sterile, separating HS from an infected abscess.⁵ The result is thick, dense, scarred tissue.

The diagnosis is clinical in nature, with the history and physical exam distinguishing it from other skin disorders. In addition to the recurring physical pain, there is the emotional distress and self-consciousness about the drainage, odor, and scarring. This particular patient said that she avoided wearing sleeveless shirts due to the lesions’ appearance.

Treatment is multifactorial. Smoking and obesity are contributory factors, so smoking cessation and weight loss are recommended. For very mild HS, topical clindamycin 1% twice daily may suffice, but usually, due to the amount of inflammation, oral antibiotics are the initial therapy. (The use of antibiotics is for their anti-inflammatory component, as the nodules and unruptured tracts are sterile.)

Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily is the usual starting systemic antibiotic. In more severe or resistant cases, a combination of clindamycin and rifampin 300 mg each twice daily is used. (Worth noting: Rifampin interacts with oral contraceptives and many of these patients are women of reproductive age.) Treatment length is usually long (10 to 12 weeks) and recurrence is common.³

Spironolactone 100 mg daily and metformin 1000 mg extended release daily, which reduces insulin resistance, may be helpful. Intralesional injections of 10 mg/mL of triamcinolone in sterile saline can relieve the painful inflamed tracts. Referral for biologic agents, including infliximab, may be needed in severe cases that do not respond to other measures. Although invasive, wide debridement of the diseased tissue can reduce the disease burden.⁶

This particular patient said that she’d stopped smoking 3 years earlier and would work on losing weight. She was prescribed topical clindamycin 1% lotion twice daily along with oral clindamycin and rifampin dosed as above for 3 months. She declined metformin and intralesional injections. At a follow-up appointment 3 weeks later, she was pleased with the decrease in inflammation and had only 1 remaining tender area of fluctuance. She again declined injections and planned to continue on her oral and topical antibiotics.

‌

Photo courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP. Text courtesy of Derissa F. Raynold, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Lisa McCorkell had a mild bout of COVID-19 in March 2020. Young and healthy, she assumed that she would bounce back quickly. But when her fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain fog persisted, she realized that she most likely had long COVID. 

“Back then, we as patients basically coined the term,” she said. While her first primary care provider was sympathetic, they were unsure how to treat her. After her insurance changed, she ended up with a second primary care provider who didn’t take her symptoms seriously. “They dismissed my complaints and told me they were all in my head. I didn’t seek care for a while after that.”

Ms. McCorkell’s symptoms improved after her first COVID vaccine in the spring of 2021. She also finally found a new primary care doctor she could trust. But as one of the founders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, a group of researchers who study long COVID, she said many doctors still don’t know the hallmark symptoms of the condition or how to treat it. 

“There’s still a lack of education on what long COVID is, and the symptoms associated with it,” she said. “Many of the symptoms that occur in long COVID are symptoms of other chronic conditions, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, that are often dismissed. And even if providers believe patients and send them for a workup, many of the routine blood and imaging tests come back normal.”

The term “long COVID” emerged in May 2020. And though the condition was recognized within a few months of the start of the pandemic, doctors weren’t sure how to screen or treat it. 

While knowledge has developed since then, primary care doctors are still in a tough spot. They’re often the first providers that patients turn to when they have symptoms of long COVID. But with no standard diagnostic tests, treatment guidelines, standard care recommendations, and a large range of symptoms the condition can produce, doctors may not know what to look for, nor how to help patients.

“There’s no clear algorithm to pick up long COVID – there are no definite blood tests or biomarkers, or specific things to look for on a physical exam,” said Lawrence Purpura, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of the long COVID clinic at Columbia University Medical Center, New York. “It’s a complicated disease that can impact every organ system of the body.”

Even so, emerging research has identified a checklist of sorts that doctors should consider when a patient seeks care for what appears to be long COVID. Among them: the key systems and organs impacted by the disease, the most common symptoms, useful therapeutic options for symptom management that have been found to help people with long COVID, and the best healthy lifestyle choices that doctors can recommend to help their patients 

Here’s a closer look at each of these aspects, based on research and interviews with experts, patients, and doctors. 
 

Key systems, organs impacted

About 10% of people who are infected with COVID-19 go on to have long COVID, according to a recent study that Ms. McCorkell helped coauthor. But more than 3 years into the pandemic, much about the condition is still a mystery.

COVID is a unique virus because it can spread far and wide in a patient’s body. A December 2022 study, published in Nature, autopsied 44 people who died of COVID and found that the virus could spread throughout the body and persist, in one case as long as 230 days after symptoms started. 

“We know that there are dozens of symptoms across multiple organ systems,” said Ms. McCorkell. “That makes it harder for a primary care physician to connect the dots and associate it with COVID.”

A paper published in Nature Medicine proposed one way to help guide diagnosis. It divided symptoms into four groups: 

• Cardiac and renal issues such as heart palpitations, chest pain, and kidney damage
• Sleep and anxiety problems like insomnia, waking up in the middle of the night, and anxiety
• In the musculoskeletal and nervous systems: musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, and problems with mental skills
• In the digestive and respiratory systems: trouble breathing, asthma, stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting

There were also specific patterns in these groups. People in the first group were more likely to be older, male, have other conditions and to have been infected during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. People in the second group were over 60% female, and were more likely to have had previous allergies or asthma. The third group was also about 60% female, and many of them already had autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis. Members of the fourth group – also 60% female – were the least likely of all the groups to have another condition.

This research is helpful, because it gives doctors a better sense of what conditions might make a patient more likely to get long COVID, as well as specific symptoms to look out for, said Steven Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at New York University Langone Medical Center who also specializes in treating patients with long COVID. 

But the “challenge there, though, for health care providers is that not everyone will fall neatly into one of these categories,” he stressed.
 

Checklist of symptoms 

Although long COVID can be confusing, doctors say there are several symptoms that appear consistently that primary care providers should look out for, that could flag long COVID.

Postexertional malaise (PEM). This is different from simply feeling tired. “This term is often conflated with fatigue, but it’s very different,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who says that he sees it in about 90% of patients who come to his long COVID clinic. 

PEM is the worsening of symptoms after physical or mental exertion. This usually occurs a day or 2 after the activity, but it can last for days, and sometimes weeks. 

“It’s very different from fatigue, which is just a generalized tiredness, and exercise intolerance, where someone complains of not being able to do their usual workout on the treadmill,” he noted. “People with PEM are able to push through and do what they need to do, and then are hit with symptoms anywhere from 12 to 72 hours later.”

Dysautonomia. This is an umbrella term used to describe a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates bodily functions that you can’t control, like your blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing. This can cause symptoms such as heart palpitations, along with orthostatic intolerance, which means you can’t stand up for long without feeling faint or dizzy. 

“In my practice, about 80% of patients meet criteria for dysautonomia,” said Dr. Putrino. Other research has found that it’s present in about two-thirds of long COVID patients.

One relatively easy way primary care providers can diagnose dysautonomia is to do the tilt table test. This helps check for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), one of the most common forms of dysautonomia. During this exam, the patient lies flat on a table. As the head of the table is raised to an almost upright position, their heart rate and blood pressure are measured. Signs of POTS include an abnormal heart rate when you’re upright, as well as a worsening of symptoms.

Exercise intolerance. A review published in the journal JAMA Network Open analyzed 38 studies on long COVID and exercise and found that patients with the condition had a much harder time doing physical activity. Exercise capacity was reduced to levels that would be expected about a decade later in life, according to study authors. 

“This is especially important because it can’t be explained just by deconditioning,” said Dr. Purpura. “Sometimes these patients are encouraged to ramp up exercise as a way to help with symptoms, but in these cases, encouraging them to push through can cause postexertional malaise, which sets patients back and delays recovery.”

While long COVID can cause dozens of symptoms, a paper Ms. McCorkell coauthored zeroed in on some of the most common ones: chest pain, heart palpitations, coughing, shortness of breath, belly pain, nausea, problems with mental skills, fatigue, disordered sleep, memory loss, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), erectile dysfunction, irregular menstruation, and worsened premenstrual syndrome.

While most primary care providers are familiar with some of these long COVID symptoms, they may not be aware of others. 

“COVID itself seems to cause hormonal changes that can lead to erection and menstrual cycle problems,” explained Dr. Putrino. “But these may not be picked up in a visit if the patient is complaining of other signs of long COVID.” 

It’s not just what symptoms are, but when they began to occur, he added. “Usually, these symptoms either start with the initial COVID infection, or begin sometime within 3 months after the acute COVID infection. That’s why it’s important for people with COVID to take notice of anything unusual that crops up within a month or 2 after getting sick.”
 

Can you prevent long COVID?

You can’t, but one of the best ways to reduce your risk is to get vaccinated. Getting at least one dose of a COVID vaccine before you test positive for COVID lowers your risk of long COVID by about 35% according to a study published in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology. Unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID, and then got a vaccine, lowered their own long COVID risk by 27%. 

In addition, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that women who were infected with COVID were less likely to go on to get long COVID and/or have less debilitating symptoms if they had a healthy lifestyle, which included the following: a healthy weight (a body mass index between 18.5 and 24.7 kg/m²), never-smoker, moderate alcohol consumption, a high-quality diet, 7-9 hours of sleep a night, and at least 150 minutes per week of physical activity

But Ms. McCorkell noted that she herself had a healthy preinfection lifestyle but got long COVID anyway, suggesting these approaches don’t work for everyone.

“I think one reason my symptoms weren’t addressed by primary care physicians for so long is because they looked at me and saw that I was young and healthy, so they dismissed my reports as being all in my head,” she explained. “But we know now anyone can get long COVID, regardless of age, health status, or disease severity. That’s why it’s so important that primary care physicians be able to recognize symptoms.”

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

Lisa McCorkell had a mild bout of COVID-19 in March 2020. Young and healthy, she assumed that she would bounce back quickly. But when her fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain fog persisted, she realized that she most likely had long COVID. 

“Back then, we as patients basically coined the term,” she said. While her first primary care provider was sympathetic, they were unsure how to treat her. After her insurance changed, she ended up with a second primary care provider who didn’t take her symptoms seriously. “They dismissed my complaints and told me they were all in my head. I didn’t seek care for a while after that.”

Ms. McCorkell’s symptoms improved after her first COVID vaccine in the spring of 2021. She also finally found a new primary care doctor she could trust. But as one of the founders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, a group of researchers who study long COVID, she said many doctors still don’t know the hallmark symptoms of the condition or how to treat it. 

“There’s still a lack of education on what long COVID is, and the symptoms associated with it,” she said. “Many of the symptoms that occur in long COVID are symptoms of other chronic conditions, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, that are often dismissed. And even if providers believe patients and send them for a workup, many of the routine blood and imaging tests come back normal.”

The term “long COVID” emerged in May 2020. And though the condition was recognized within a few months of the start of the pandemic, doctors weren’t sure how to screen or treat it. 

While knowledge has developed since then, primary care doctors are still in a tough spot. They’re often the first providers that patients turn to when they have symptoms of long COVID. But with no standard diagnostic tests, treatment guidelines, standard care recommendations, and a large range of symptoms the condition can produce, doctors may not know what to look for, nor how to help patients.

“There’s no clear algorithm to pick up long COVID – there are no definite blood tests or biomarkers, or specific things to look for on a physical exam,” said Lawrence Purpura, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of the long COVID clinic at Columbia University Medical Center, New York. “It’s a complicated disease that can impact every organ system of the body.”

Even so, emerging research has identified a checklist of sorts that doctors should consider when a patient seeks care for what appears to be long COVID. Among them: the key systems and organs impacted by the disease, the most common symptoms, useful therapeutic options for symptom management that have been found to help people with long COVID, and the best healthy lifestyle choices that doctors can recommend to help their patients 

Here’s a closer look at each of these aspects, based on research and interviews with experts, patients, and doctors. 
 

Key systems, organs impacted

About 10% of people who are infected with COVID-19 go on to have long COVID, according to a recent study that Ms. McCorkell helped coauthor. But more than 3 years into the pandemic, much about the condition is still a mystery.

COVID is a unique virus because it can spread far and wide in a patient’s body. A December 2022 study, published in Nature, autopsied 44 people who died of COVID and found that the virus could spread throughout the body and persist, in one case as long as 230 days after symptoms started. 

“We know that there are dozens of symptoms across multiple organ systems,” said Ms. McCorkell. “That makes it harder for a primary care physician to connect the dots and associate it with COVID.”

A paper published in Nature Medicine proposed one way to help guide diagnosis. It divided symptoms into four groups: 

• Cardiac and renal issues such as heart palpitations, chest pain, and kidney damage
• Sleep and anxiety problems like insomnia, waking up in the middle of the night, and anxiety
• In the musculoskeletal and nervous systems: musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, and problems with mental skills
• In the digestive and respiratory systems: trouble breathing, asthma, stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting

There were also specific patterns in these groups. People in the first group were more likely to be older, male, have other conditions and to have been infected during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. People in the second group were over 60% female, and were more likely to have had previous allergies or asthma. The third group was also about 60% female, and many of them already had autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis. Members of the fourth group – also 60% female – were the least likely of all the groups to have another condition.

This research is helpful, because it gives doctors a better sense of what conditions might make a patient more likely to get long COVID, as well as specific symptoms to look out for, said Steven Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at New York University Langone Medical Center who also specializes in treating patients with long COVID. 

But the “challenge there, though, for health care providers is that not everyone will fall neatly into one of these categories,” he stressed.
 

Checklist of symptoms 

Although long COVID can be confusing, doctors say there are several symptoms that appear consistently that primary care providers should look out for, that could flag long COVID.

Postexertional malaise (PEM). This is different from simply feeling tired. “This term is often conflated with fatigue, but it’s very different,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who says that he sees it in about 90% of patients who come to his long COVID clinic. 

PEM is the worsening of symptoms after physical or mental exertion. This usually occurs a day or 2 after the activity, but it can last for days, and sometimes weeks. 

“It’s very different from fatigue, which is just a generalized tiredness, and exercise intolerance, where someone complains of not being able to do their usual workout on the treadmill,” he noted. “People with PEM are able to push through and do what they need to do, and then are hit with symptoms anywhere from 12 to 72 hours later.”

Dysautonomia. This is an umbrella term used to describe a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates bodily functions that you can’t control, like your blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing. This can cause symptoms such as heart palpitations, along with orthostatic intolerance, which means you can’t stand up for long without feeling faint or dizzy. 

“In my practice, about 80% of patients meet criteria for dysautonomia,” said Dr. Putrino. Other research has found that it’s present in about two-thirds of long COVID patients.

One relatively easy way primary care providers can diagnose dysautonomia is to do the tilt table test. This helps check for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), one of the most common forms of dysautonomia. During this exam, the patient lies flat on a table. As the head of the table is raised to an almost upright position, their heart rate and blood pressure are measured. Signs of POTS include an abnormal heart rate when you’re upright, as well as a worsening of symptoms.

Exercise intolerance. A review published in the journal JAMA Network Open analyzed 38 studies on long COVID and exercise and found that patients with the condition had a much harder time doing physical activity. Exercise capacity was reduced to levels that would be expected about a decade later in life, according to study authors. 

“This is especially important because it can’t be explained just by deconditioning,” said Dr. Purpura. “Sometimes these patients are encouraged to ramp up exercise as a way to help with symptoms, but in these cases, encouraging them to push through can cause postexertional malaise, which sets patients back and delays recovery.”

While long COVID can cause dozens of symptoms, a paper Ms. McCorkell coauthored zeroed in on some of the most common ones: chest pain, heart palpitations, coughing, shortness of breath, belly pain, nausea, problems with mental skills, fatigue, disordered sleep, memory loss, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), erectile dysfunction, irregular menstruation, and worsened premenstrual syndrome.

While most primary care providers are familiar with some of these long COVID symptoms, they may not be aware of others. 

“COVID itself seems to cause hormonal changes that can lead to erection and menstrual cycle problems,” explained Dr. Putrino. “But these may not be picked up in a visit if the patient is complaining of other signs of long COVID.” 

It’s not just what symptoms are, but when they began to occur, he added. “Usually, these symptoms either start with the initial COVID infection, or begin sometime within 3 months after the acute COVID infection. That’s why it’s important for people with COVID to take notice of anything unusual that crops up within a month or 2 after getting sick.”
 

Can you prevent long COVID?

You can’t, but one of the best ways to reduce your risk is to get vaccinated. Getting at least one dose of a COVID vaccine before you test positive for COVID lowers your risk of long COVID by about 35% according to a study published in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology. Unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID, and then got a vaccine, lowered their own long COVID risk by 27%. 

In addition, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that women who were infected with COVID were less likely to go on to get long COVID and/or have less debilitating symptoms if they had a healthy lifestyle, which included the following: a healthy weight (a body mass index between 18.5 and 24.7 kg/m²), never-smoker, moderate alcohol consumption, a high-quality diet, 7-9 hours of sleep a night, and at least 150 minutes per week of physical activity

But Ms. McCorkell noted that she herself had a healthy preinfection lifestyle but got long COVID anyway, suggesting these approaches don’t work for everyone.

“I think one reason my symptoms weren’t addressed by primary care physicians for so long is because they looked at me and saw that I was young and healthy, so they dismissed my reports as being all in my head,” she explained. “But we know now anyone can get long COVID, regardless of age, health status, or disease severity. That’s why it’s so important that primary care physicians be able to recognize symptoms.”

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

Lisa McCorkell had a mild bout of COVID-19 in March 2020. Young and healthy, she assumed that she would bounce back quickly. But when her fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain fog persisted, she realized that she most likely had long COVID. 

“Back then, we as patients basically coined the term,” she said. While her first primary care provider was sympathetic, they were unsure how to treat her. After her insurance changed, she ended up with a second primary care provider who didn’t take her symptoms seriously. “They dismissed my complaints and told me they were all in my head. I didn’t seek care for a while after that.”

Ms. McCorkell’s symptoms improved after her first COVID vaccine in the spring of 2021. She also finally found a new primary care doctor she could trust. But as one of the founders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, a group of researchers who study long COVID, she said many doctors still don’t know the hallmark symptoms of the condition or how to treat it. 

“There’s still a lack of education on what long COVID is, and the symptoms associated with it,” she said. “Many of the symptoms that occur in long COVID are symptoms of other chronic conditions, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, that are often dismissed. And even if providers believe patients and send them for a workup, many of the routine blood and imaging tests come back normal.”

The term “long COVID” emerged in May 2020. And though the condition was recognized within a few months of the start of the pandemic, doctors weren’t sure how to screen or treat it. 

While knowledge has developed since then, primary care doctors are still in a tough spot. They’re often the first providers that patients turn to when they have symptoms of long COVID. But with no standard diagnostic tests, treatment guidelines, standard care recommendations, and a large range of symptoms the condition can produce, doctors may not know what to look for, nor how to help patients.

“There’s no clear algorithm to pick up long COVID – there are no definite blood tests or biomarkers, or specific things to look for on a physical exam,” said Lawrence Purpura, MD, an infectious disease specialist and director of the long COVID clinic at Columbia University Medical Center, New York. “It’s a complicated disease that can impact every organ system of the body.”

Even so, emerging research has identified a checklist of sorts that doctors should consider when a patient seeks care for what appears to be long COVID. Among them: the key systems and organs impacted by the disease, the most common symptoms, useful therapeutic options for symptom management that have been found to help people with long COVID, and the best healthy lifestyle choices that doctors can recommend to help their patients 

Here’s a closer look at each of these aspects, based on research and interviews with experts, patients, and doctors. 
 

Key systems, organs impacted

About 10% of people who are infected with COVID-19 go on to have long COVID, according to a recent study that Ms. McCorkell helped coauthor. But more than 3 years into the pandemic, much about the condition is still a mystery.

COVID is a unique virus because it can spread far and wide in a patient’s body. A December 2022 study, published in Nature, autopsied 44 people who died of COVID and found that the virus could spread throughout the body and persist, in one case as long as 230 days after symptoms started. 

“We know that there are dozens of symptoms across multiple organ systems,” said Ms. McCorkell. “That makes it harder for a primary care physician to connect the dots and associate it with COVID.”

A paper published in Nature Medicine proposed one way to help guide diagnosis. It divided symptoms into four groups: 

• Cardiac and renal issues such as heart palpitations, chest pain, and kidney damage
• Sleep and anxiety problems like insomnia, waking up in the middle of the night, and anxiety
• In the musculoskeletal and nervous systems: musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, and problems with mental skills
• In the digestive and respiratory systems: trouble breathing, asthma, stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting

There were also specific patterns in these groups. People in the first group were more likely to be older, male, have other conditions and to have been infected during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. People in the second group were over 60% female, and were more likely to have had previous allergies or asthma. The third group was also about 60% female, and many of them already had autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis. Members of the fourth group – also 60% female – were the least likely of all the groups to have another condition.

This research is helpful, because it gives doctors a better sense of what conditions might make a patient more likely to get long COVID, as well as specific symptoms to look out for, said Steven Flanagan, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at New York University Langone Medical Center who also specializes in treating patients with long COVID. 

But the “challenge there, though, for health care providers is that not everyone will fall neatly into one of these categories,” he stressed.
 

Checklist of symptoms 

Although long COVID can be confusing, doctors say there are several symptoms that appear consistently that primary care providers should look out for, that could flag long COVID.

Postexertional malaise (PEM). This is different from simply feeling tired. “This term is often conflated with fatigue, but it’s very different,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who says that he sees it in about 90% of patients who come to his long COVID clinic. 

PEM is the worsening of symptoms after physical or mental exertion. This usually occurs a day or 2 after the activity, but it can last for days, and sometimes weeks. 

“It’s very different from fatigue, which is just a generalized tiredness, and exercise intolerance, where someone complains of not being able to do their usual workout on the treadmill,” he noted. “People with PEM are able to push through and do what they need to do, and then are hit with symptoms anywhere from 12 to 72 hours later.”

Dysautonomia. This is an umbrella term used to describe a dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates bodily functions that you can’t control, like your blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing. This can cause symptoms such as heart palpitations, along with orthostatic intolerance, which means you can’t stand up for long without feeling faint or dizzy. 

“In my practice, about 80% of patients meet criteria for dysautonomia,” said Dr. Putrino. Other research has found that it’s present in about two-thirds of long COVID patients.

One relatively easy way primary care providers can diagnose dysautonomia is to do the tilt table test. This helps check for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), one of the most common forms of dysautonomia. During this exam, the patient lies flat on a table. As the head of the table is raised to an almost upright position, their heart rate and blood pressure are measured. Signs of POTS include an abnormal heart rate when you’re upright, as well as a worsening of symptoms.

Exercise intolerance. A review published in the journal JAMA Network Open analyzed 38 studies on long COVID and exercise and found that patients with the condition had a much harder time doing physical activity. Exercise capacity was reduced to levels that would be expected about a decade later in life, according to study authors. 

“This is especially important because it can’t be explained just by deconditioning,” said Dr. Purpura. “Sometimes these patients are encouraged to ramp up exercise as a way to help with symptoms, but in these cases, encouraging them to push through can cause postexertional malaise, which sets patients back and delays recovery.”

While long COVID can cause dozens of symptoms, a paper Ms. McCorkell coauthored zeroed in on some of the most common ones: chest pain, heart palpitations, coughing, shortness of breath, belly pain, nausea, problems with mental skills, fatigue, disordered sleep, memory loss, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), erectile dysfunction, irregular menstruation, and worsened premenstrual syndrome.

While most primary care providers are familiar with some of these long COVID symptoms, they may not be aware of others. 

“COVID itself seems to cause hormonal changes that can lead to erection and menstrual cycle problems,” explained Dr. Putrino. “But these may not be picked up in a visit if the patient is complaining of other signs of long COVID.” 

It’s not just what symptoms are, but when they began to occur, he added. “Usually, these symptoms either start with the initial COVID infection, or begin sometime within 3 months after the acute COVID infection. That’s why it’s important for people with COVID to take notice of anything unusual that crops up within a month or 2 after getting sick.”
 

Can you prevent long COVID?

You can’t, but one of the best ways to reduce your risk is to get vaccinated. Getting at least one dose of a COVID vaccine before you test positive for COVID lowers your risk of long COVID by about 35% according to a study published in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology. Unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID, and then got a vaccine, lowered their own long COVID risk by 27%. 

In addition, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that women who were infected with COVID were less likely to go on to get long COVID and/or have less debilitating symptoms if they had a healthy lifestyle, which included the following: a healthy weight (a body mass index between 18.5 and 24.7 kg/m²), never-smoker, moderate alcohol consumption, a high-quality diet, 7-9 hours of sleep a night, and at least 150 minutes per week of physical activity

But Ms. McCorkell noted that she herself had a healthy preinfection lifestyle but got long COVID anyway, suggesting these approaches don’t work for everyone.

“I think one reason my symptoms weren’t addressed by primary care physicians for so long is because they looked at me and saw that I was young and healthy, so they dismissed my reports as being all in my head,” she explained. “But we know now anyone can get long COVID, regardless of age, health status, or disease severity. That’s why it’s so important that primary care physicians be able to recognize symptoms.”

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

Adding 10 minutes to family mealtimes increased children’s consumption of fruits and vegetables by approximately one portion, based on data from 50 parent-child dyads.

Family meals are known to affect children’s food choices and preferences and can be an effective setting for improving children’s nutrition, wrote Mattea Dallacker, PhD, of the University of Mannheim, Germany, and colleagues.

However, the effect of extending meal duration on increasing fruit and vegetable intake in particular has not been examined, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers provided two free evening meals to 50 parent-child dyads under each of two different conditions. The control condition was defined by the families as a regular family mealtime duration (an average meal was 20.83 minutes), while the intervention was an average meal time 10 minutes (50%) longer. The age of the parents ranged from 22 to 55 years, with a mean of 43 years; 72% of the parent participants were mothers. The children’s ages ranged from 6 to 11 years, with a mean of 8 years, with approximately equal numbers of boys and girls.

The study was conducted in a family meal laboratory setting in Berlin, and groups were randomized to the longer or shorter meal setting first. The primary outcome was the total number of pieces of fruit and vegetables eaten by the child as part of each of the two meals.

Both meals were the “typical German evening meal of sliced bread, cold cuts of cheese and meat, and bite-sized pieces of fruits and vegetables,” followed by a dessert course of chocolate pudding or fruit yogurt and cookies, the researchers wrote. Beverages were water and one sugar-sweetened beverage; the specific foods and beverages were based on the child’s preferences, reported in an online preassessment, and the foods were consistent for the longer and shorter meals. All participants were asked not to eat for 2 hours prior to arriving for their meals at the laboratory.

During longer meals, children ate an average of seven additional bite-sized pieces of fruits and vegetables, which translates to approximately a full portion (defined as 100 g, such as a medium apple), the researchers wrote. The difference was significant compared with the shorter meals for fruits (P = .01) and vegetables (P < .001).

A piece of fruit was approximately 10 grams (6-10 g for grapes and tangerine segments; 10-14 g for cherry tomatoes; and 9-11 g for apple, banana, carrot, or cucumber). Other foods served with the meals included cheese, meats, butter, and sweet spreads.

Children also ate more slowly (defined as fewer bites per minute) during the longer meals, and they reported significantly greater satiety after the longer meals (P < .001 for both). The consumption of bread and cold cuts was similar for the two meal settings.

“Higher intake of fruits and vegetables during longer meals cannot be explained by longer exposure to food alone; otherwise, an increased intake of bread and cold cuts would have occurred,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “One possible explanation is that the fruits and vegetables were cut into bite-sized pieces, making them convenient to eat.”

Further analysis showed that during the longer meals, more fruits and vegetables were consumed overall, but more vegetables were eaten from the start of the meal, while the additional fruit was eaten during the additional time at the end.

The findings were limited by several factors, primarily use of a laboratory setting that does not generalize to natural eating environments, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the effect of a video cameras on desirable behaviors and the limited ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the study population, they said. The results were strengthened by the within-dyad study design that allowed for control of factors such as video observation, but more research is needed with more diverse groups and across longer time frames, the researchers said.

However, the results suggest that adding 10 minutes to a family mealtime can yield significant improvements in children’s diets, they said. They suggested strategies including playing music chosen by the child/children and setting rules that everyone must remain at the table for a certain length of time, with fruits and vegetables available on the table.

“If the effects of this simple, inexpensive, and low-threshold intervention prove stable over time, it could contribute to addressing a major public health problem,” the researchers concluded.
 

Findings intriguing, more data needed

The current study is important because food and vegetable intake in the majority of children falls below the recommended daily allowance, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

The key take-home message for clinicians is the continued need to stress the importance of family meals, said Dr. Kinsella. “Many children continue to be overbooked with activities, and it may be rare for many families to sit down together for a meal for any length of time.”

Don’t discount the potential effect of a longer school lunch on children’s fruit and vegetable consumption as well, she added. “Advocating for longer lunch time is important, as many kids report not being able to finish their lunch at school.”

The current study was limited by being conducted in a lab setting, which may have influenced children’s desire for different foods, “also they had fewer distractions, and were being offered favorite foods,” said Dr. Kinsella.

Looking ahead, “it would be interesting to see if this result carried over to nonpreferred fruits and veggies and made any difference for picky eaters,” she said. 

The study received no outside funding. The open-access publication of the study (but not the study itself) was supported by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development Library Open Access Fund. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Adding 10 minutes to family mealtimes increased children’s consumption of fruits and vegetables by approximately one portion, based on data from 50 parent-child dyads.

Family meals are known to affect children’s food choices and preferences and can be an effective setting for improving children’s nutrition, wrote Mattea Dallacker, PhD, of the University of Mannheim, Germany, and colleagues.

However, the effect of extending meal duration on increasing fruit and vegetable intake in particular has not been examined, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers provided two free evening meals to 50 parent-child dyads under each of two different conditions. The control condition was defined by the families as a regular family mealtime duration (an average meal was 20.83 minutes), while the intervention was an average meal time 10 minutes (50%) longer. The age of the parents ranged from 22 to 55 years, with a mean of 43 years; 72% of the parent participants were mothers. The children’s ages ranged from 6 to 11 years, with a mean of 8 years, with approximately equal numbers of boys and girls.

The study was conducted in a family meal laboratory setting in Berlin, and groups were randomized to the longer or shorter meal setting first. The primary outcome was the total number of pieces of fruit and vegetables eaten by the child as part of each of the two meals.

Both meals were the “typical German evening meal of sliced bread, cold cuts of cheese and meat, and bite-sized pieces of fruits and vegetables,” followed by a dessert course of chocolate pudding or fruit yogurt and cookies, the researchers wrote. Beverages were water and one sugar-sweetened beverage; the specific foods and beverages were based on the child’s preferences, reported in an online preassessment, and the foods were consistent for the longer and shorter meals. All participants were asked not to eat for 2 hours prior to arriving for their meals at the laboratory.

During longer meals, children ate an average of seven additional bite-sized pieces of fruits and vegetables, which translates to approximately a full portion (defined as 100 g, such as a medium apple), the researchers wrote. The difference was significant compared with the shorter meals for fruits (P = .01) and vegetables (P < .001).

A piece of fruit was approximately 10 grams (6-10 g for grapes and tangerine segments; 10-14 g for cherry tomatoes; and 9-11 g for apple, banana, carrot, or cucumber). Other foods served with the meals included cheese, meats, butter, and sweet spreads.

Children also ate more slowly (defined as fewer bites per minute) during the longer meals, and they reported significantly greater satiety after the longer meals (P < .001 for both). The consumption of bread and cold cuts was similar for the two meal settings.

“Higher intake of fruits and vegetables during longer meals cannot be explained by longer exposure to food alone; otherwise, an increased intake of bread and cold cuts would have occurred,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “One possible explanation is that the fruits and vegetables were cut into bite-sized pieces, making them convenient to eat.”

Further analysis showed that during the longer meals, more fruits and vegetables were consumed overall, but more vegetables were eaten from the start of the meal, while the additional fruit was eaten during the additional time at the end.

The findings were limited by several factors, primarily use of a laboratory setting that does not generalize to natural eating environments, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the effect of a video cameras on desirable behaviors and the limited ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the study population, they said. The results were strengthened by the within-dyad study design that allowed for control of factors such as video observation, but more research is needed with more diverse groups and across longer time frames, the researchers said.

However, the results suggest that adding 10 minutes to a family mealtime can yield significant improvements in children’s diets, they said. They suggested strategies including playing music chosen by the child/children and setting rules that everyone must remain at the table for a certain length of time, with fruits and vegetables available on the table.

“If the effects of this simple, inexpensive, and low-threshold intervention prove stable over time, it could contribute to addressing a major public health problem,” the researchers concluded.
 

Findings intriguing, more data needed

The current study is important because food and vegetable intake in the majority of children falls below the recommended daily allowance, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

The key take-home message for clinicians is the continued need to stress the importance of family meals, said Dr. Kinsella. “Many children continue to be overbooked with activities, and it may be rare for many families to sit down together for a meal for any length of time.”

Don’t discount the potential effect of a longer school lunch on children’s fruit and vegetable consumption as well, she added. “Advocating for longer lunch time is important, as many kids report not being able to finish their lunch at school.”

The current study was limited by being conducted in a lab setting, which may have influenced children’s desire for different foods, “also they had fewer distractions, and were being offered favorite foods,” said Dr. Kinsella.

Looking ahead, “it would be interesting to see if this result carried over to nonpreferred fruits and veggies and made any difference for picky eaters,” she said. 

The study received no outside funding. The open-access publication of the study (but not the study itself) was supported by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development Library Open Access Fund. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Adding 10 minutes to family mealtimes increased children’s consumption of fruits and vegetables by approximately one portion, based on data from 50 parent-child dyads.

Family meals are known to affect children’s food choices and preferences and can be an effective setting for improving children’s nutrition, wrote Mattea Dallacker, PhD, of the University of Mannheim, Germany, and colleagues.

However, the effect of extending meal duration on increasing fruit and vegetable intake in particular has not been examined, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers provided two free evening meals to 50 parent-child dyads under each of two different conditions. The control condition was defined by the families as a regular family mealtime duration (an average meal was 20.83 minutes), while the intervention was an average meal time 10 minutes (50%) longer. The age of the parents ranged from 22 to 55 years, with a mean of 43 years; 72% of the parent participants were mothers. The children’s ages ranged from 6 to 11 years, with a mean of 8 years, with approximately equal numbers of boys and girls.

The study was conducted in a family meal laboratory setting in Berlin, and groups were randomized to the longer or shorter meal setting first. The primary outcome was the total number of pieces of fruit and vegetables eaten by the child as part of each of the two meals.

Both meals were the “typical German evening meal of sliced bread, cold cuts of cheese and meat, and bite-sized pieces of fruits and vegetables,” followed by a dessert course of chocolate pudding or fruit yogurt and cookies, the researchers wrote. Beverages were water and one sugar-sweetened beverage; the specific foods and beverages were based on the child’s preferences, reported in an online preassessment, and the foods were consistent for the longer and shorter meals. All participants were asked not to eat for 2 hours prior to arriving for their meals at the laboratory.

During longer meals, children ate an average of seven additional bite-sized pieces of fruits and vegetables, which translates to approximately a full portion (defined as 100 g, such as a medium apple), the researchers wrote. The difference was significant compared with the shorter meals for fruits (P = .01) and vegetables (P < .001).

A piece of fruit was approximately 10 grams (6-10 g for grapes and tangerine segments; 10-14 g for cherry tomatoes; and 9-11 g for apple, banana, carrot, or cucumber). Other foods served with the meals included cheese, meats, butter, and sweet spreads.

Children also ate more slowly (defined as fewer bites per minute) during the longer meals, and they reported significantly greater satiety after the longer meals (P < .001 for both). The consumption of bread and cold cuts was similar for the two meal settings.

“Higher intake of fruits and vegetables during longer meals cannot be explained by longer exposure to food alone; otherwise, an increased intake of bread and cold cuts would have occurred,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “One possible explanation is that the fruits and vegetables were cut into bite-sized pieces, making them convenient to eat.”

Further analysis showed that during the longer meals, more fruits and vegetables were consumed overall, but more vegetables were eaten from the start of the meal, while the additional fruit was eaten during the additional time at the end.

The findings were limited by several factors, primarily use of a laboratory setting that does not generalize to natural eating environments, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included the effect of a video cameras on desirable behaviors and the limited ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the study population, they said. The results were strengthened by the within-dyad study design that allowed for control of factors such as video observation, but more research is needed with more diverse groups and across longer time frames, the researchers said.

However, the results suggest that adding 10 minutes to a family mealtime can yield significant improvements in children’s diets, they said. They suggested strategies including playing music chosen by the child/children and setting rules that everyone must remain at the table for a certain length of time, with fruits and vegetables available on the table.

“If the effects of this simple, inexpensive, and low-threshold intervention prove stable over time, it could contribute to addressing a major public health problem,” the researchers concluded.
 

Findings intriguing, more data needed

The current study is important because food and vegetable intake in the majority of children falls below the recommended daily allowance, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

The key take-home message for clinicians is the continued need to stress the importance of family meals, said Dr. Kinsella. “Many children continue to be overbooked with activities, and it may be rare for many families to sit down together for a meal for any length of time.”

Don’t discount the potential effect of a longer school lunch on children’s fruit and vegetable consumption as well, she added. “Advocating for longer lunch time is important, as many kids report not being able to finish their lunch at school.”

The current study was limited by being conducted in a lab setting, which may have influenced children’s desire for different foods, “also they had fewer distractions, and were being offered favorite foods,” said Dr. Kinsella.

Looking ahead, “it would be interesting to see if this result carried over to nonpreferred fruits and veggies and made any difference for picky eaters,” she said. 

The study received no outside funding. The open-access publication of the study (but not the study itself) was supported by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development Library Open Access Fund. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Amplified by the childhood obesity epidemic, primary hypertension is now the leading type of pediatric hypertension, especially in adolescence, yet the condition is “underrecognized,” the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.

“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted. 

The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.

Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.

The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.

Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.

They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.

When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.

Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.

“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.

The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.

Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.

A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.  

Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
 

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

Amplified by the childhood obesity epidemic, primary hypertension is now the leading type of pediatric hypertension, especially in adolescence, yet the condition is “underrecognized,” the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.

“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted. 

The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.

Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.

The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.

Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.

They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.

When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.

Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.

“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.

The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.

Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.

A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.  

Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
 

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

Amplified by the childhood obesity epidemic, primary hypertension is now the leading type of pediatric hypertension, especially in adolescence, yet the condition is “underrecognized,” the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.

“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted. 

The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.

Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.

The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.

Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.

They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.

When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.

Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.

“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.

The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.

Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.

A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.  

Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
 

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

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

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

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

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

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

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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