User login
In Case You Missed It: COVID
How Medical Education Is Evolving in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?
Answer: Medical knowledge.
In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside.
This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option?
Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner.
The Backdrop
Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly.
Pre-pandemic efforts
In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week.
Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall.
Barriers to widespread implementation
Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training.
Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error.
Proposed solutions
Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary.
Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020.
The Trigger
With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate.
Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.
Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.
Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies
Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.
Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions
Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.
Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations
Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training).
Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction
Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation.
Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation
The Evidence
Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME.
Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.
A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms.
In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online.
Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.
In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well.
In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred.
CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.
Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned.
However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred.
Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.
The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.
Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?
Answer: Medical knowledge.
In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside.
This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option?
Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner.
The Backdrop
Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly.
Pre-pandemic efforts
In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week.
Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall.
Barriers to widespread implementation
Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training.
Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error.
Proposed solutions
Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary.
Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020.
The Trigger
With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate.
Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.
Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.
Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies
Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.
Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions
Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.
Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations
Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training).
Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction
Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation.
Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation
The Evidence
Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME.
Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.
A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms.
In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online.
Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.
In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well.
In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred.
CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.
Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned.
However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred.
Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.
The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.
Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?
Answer: Medical knowledge.
In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside.
This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option?
Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner.
The Backdrop
Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly.
Pre-pandemic efforts
In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week.
Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall.
Barriers to widespread implementation
Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training.
Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error.
Proposed solutions
Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary.
Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020.
The Trigger
With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate.
Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.
Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.
Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies
Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.
Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions
Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.
Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations
Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training).
Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction
Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation.
Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation
The Evidence
Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME.
Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.
A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms.
In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online.
Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.
In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well.
In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred.
CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.
Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned.
However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred.
Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.
The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.
Paxlovid tied to benefits in high-risk patients with COVID
In a cohort study from British Columbia that included nearly 7,000 patients with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 2.5% reduction in risk for death or emergency hospitalization in clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) patients who were severely immunocompromised. No significant benefit was observed in patients who were not immunocompromised.
“This finding could help substantially limit unnecessary use of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in older, otherwise healthy individuals,” lead author Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, associate professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization. “Another finding that was surprising and might help place the role of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in context is that even in severely immunocompromised individuals who did not take [the drug], the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 was less than 4% in our study population.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Who benefits?
The investigators analyzed medical records for 6,866 patients in British Columbia (median age, 70 years; 57% women) who presented between Feb. 1, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023. Eligible patients belonged to one of four higher-risk groups who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination.
Two groups included CEV patients who were severely (CEV1) or moderately (CEV2) immunocompromised. The CEV3 group was not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group included higher-risk patients who were not in one of the other groups, such as unvaccinated patients older than age 70 years.
The investigators matched treated patients to untreated patients in the same vulnerability group according to age, sex, and month of infection. The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.
Treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome, compared with no treatment, for patients in the CEV1 (risk difference, −2.5%) and CEV2 (RD, −1.7%) groups. In the CEV3 group, the RD of −1.3% was not statistically significant. In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the result was not statistically significant.
The results were “robust across sex and older vs. younger age,” the authors note. “No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.”
The combination of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was approved for use in Canada based on interim efficacy and safety data from the Evaluation of Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial, said Dr. Dormuth.
British Columbia’s eligibility criteria for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir coverage differ substantially from the criteria for participants in the EPIC-HR trial, he noted. Those patients were unvaccinated, had no natural immunity from a previous COVID-19 infection, and were infected with COVID-19 variants that were different from those now circulating. The current study was prompted by the need to look at a broader population of individuals in British Columbia with varying risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.
Before the study, a common view was that patients aged 70 and older would benefit from the drug, said Dr. Dormuth. “Our study, which accounted for medical conditions related to an individual’s vulnerability to complications, showed that older age on its own was not a reason to use nirmatrelvir and ritonavir once relevant medical conditions were taken into consideration.”
The researchers are working on a study to identify with greater specificity which comorbid conditions are most associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectiveness, he added. “It could be that a relatively small number of conditions can be used to identify most individuals who would benefit from the drug.”
‘Signal toward benefit’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Abhijit Duggal, MD, vice chair of critical care at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in this study, said, “I’m always very wary when we look at observational data and we start saying the effectiveness is not really as high as was seen in other studies. We are seeing an effect with all these studies that seems to be in the right direction.
“Having said that,” he added, “is the effect going to be potentially more in patients at higher risk? Absolutely. I think these postmarket studies are really showing that after vaccination, if someone does get infected, this is a secondary option available to us that can prevent progression of the disease, which would likely be more severe in immunocompromised patients.”
Dr. Duggal was a coinvestigator on a recent study of more than 68,000 patients that showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in nonhospitalized patients infected with the Omicron variant, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions.
“In all groups, there was a signal toward benefit,” said Dr. Duggal. “These studies tell us that these drugs do remain valid options. But their use needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis with patients we feel are deteriorating or at a higher risk because of underlying disease processes.”
The study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Dr. Dormuth and Dr. Duggal report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cohort study from British Columbia that included nearly 7,000 patients with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 2.5% reduction in risk for death or emergency hospitalization in clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) patients who were severely immunocompromised. No significant benefit was observed in patients who were not immunocompromised.
“This finding could help substantially limit unnecessary use of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in older, otherwise healthy individuals,” lead author Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, associate professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization. “Another finding that was surprising and might help place the role of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in context is that even in severely immunocompromised individuals who did not take [the drug], the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 was less than 4% in our study population.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Who benefits?
The investigators analyzed medical records for 6,866 patients in British Columbia (median age, 70 years; 57% women) who presented between Feb. 1, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023. Eligible patients belonged to one of four higher-risk groups who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination.
Two groups included CEV patients who were severely (CEV1) or moderately (CEV2) immunocompromised. The CEV3 group was not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group included higher-risk patients who were not in one of the other groups, such as unvaccinated patients older than age 70 years.
The investigators matched treated patients to untreated patients in the same vulnerability group according to age, sex, and month of infection. The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.
Treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome, compared with no treatment, for patients in the CEV1 (risk difference, −2.5%) and CEV2 (RD, −1.7%) groups. In the CEV3 group, the RD of −1.3% was not statistically significant. In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the result was not statistically significant.
The results were “robust across sex and older vs. younger age,” the authors note. “No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.”
The combination of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was approved for use in Canada based on interim efficacy and safety data from the Evaluation of Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial, said Dr. Dormuth.
British Columbia’s eligibility criteria for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir coverage differ substantially from the criteria for participants in the EPIC-HR trial, he noted. Those patients were unvaccinated, had no natural immunity from a previous COVID-19 infection, and were infected with COVID-19 variants that were different from those now circulating. The current study was prompted by the need to look at a broader population of individuals in British Columbia with varying risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.
Before the study, a common view was that patients aged 70 and older would benefit from the drug, said Dr. Dormuth. “Our study, which accounted for medical conditions related to an individual’s vulnerability to complications, showed that older age on its own was not a reason to use nirmatrelvir and ritonavir once relevant medical conditions were taken into consideration.”
The researchers are working on a study to identify with greater specificity which comorbid conditions are most associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectiveness, he added. “It could be that a relatively small number of conditions can be used to identify most individuals who would benefit from the drug.”
‘Signal toward benefit’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Abhijit Duggal, MD, vice chair of critical care at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in this study, said, “I’m always very wary when we look at observational data and we start saying the effectiveness is not really as high as was seen in other studies. We are seeing an effect with all these studies that seems to be in the right direction.
“Having said that,” he added, “is the effect going to be potentially more in patients at higher risk? Absolutely. I think these postmarket studies are really showing that after vaccination, if someone does get infected, this is a secondary option available to us that can prevent progression of the disease, which would likely be more severe in immunocompromised patients.”
Dr. Duggal was a coinvestigator on a recent study of more than 68,000 patients that showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in nonhospitalized patients infected with the Omicron variant, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions.
“In all groups, there was a signal toward benefit,” said Dr. Duggal. “These studies tell us that these drugs do remain valid options. But their use needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis with patients we feel are deteriorating or at a higher risk because of underlying disease processes.”
The study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Dr. Dormuth and Dr. Duggal report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cohort study from British Columbia that included nearly 7,000 patients with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 2.5% reduction in risk for death or emergency hospitalization in clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) patients who were severely immunocompromised. No significant benefit was observed in patients who were not immunocompromised.
“This finding could help substantially limit unnecessary use of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in older, otherwise healthy individuals,” lead author Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, associate professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization. “Another finding that was surprising and might help place the role of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in context is that even in severely immunocompromised individuals who did not take [the drug], the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 was less than 4% in our study population.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Who benefits?
The investigators analyzed medical records for 6,866 patients in British Columbia (median age, 70 years; 57% women) who presented between Feb. 1, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023. Eligible patients belonged to one of four higher-risk groups who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination.
Two groups included CEV patients who were severely (CEV1) or moderately (CEV2) immunocompromised. The CEV3 group was not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group included higher-risk patients who were not in one of the other groups, such as unvaccinated patients older than age 70 years.
The investigators matched treated patients to untreated patients in the same vulnerability group according to age, sex, and month of infection. The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.
Treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome, compared with no treatment, for patients in the CEV1 (risk difference, −2.5%) and CEV2 (RD, −1.7%) groups. In the CEV3 group, the RD of −1.3% was not statistically significant. In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the result was not statistically significant.
The results were “robust across sex and older vs. younger age,” the authors note. “No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.”
The combination of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was approved for use in Canada based on interim efficacy and safety data from the Evaluation of Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial, said Dr. Dormuth.
British Columbia’s eligibility criteria for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir coverage differ substantially from the criteria for participants in the EPIC-HR trial, he noted. Those patients were unvaccinated, had no natural immunity from a previous COVID-19 infection, and were infected with COVID-19 variants that were different from those now circulating. The current study was prompted by the need to look at a broader population of individuals in British Columbia with varying risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.
Before the study, a common view was that patients aged 70 and older would benefit from the drug, said Dr. Dormuth. “Our study, which accounted for medical conditions related to an individual’s vulnerability to complications, showed that older age on its own was not a reason to use nirmatrelvir and ritonavir once relevant medical conditions were taken into consideration.”
The researchers are working on a study to identify with greater specificity which comorbid conditions are most associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectiveness, he added. “It could be that a relatively small number of conditions can be used to identify most individuals who would benefit from the drug.”
‘Signal toward benefit’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Abhijit Duggal, MD, vice chair of critical care at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in this study, said, “I’m always very wary when we look at observational data and we start saying the effectiveness is not really as high as was seen in other studies. We are seeing an effect with all these studies that seems to be in the right direction.
“Having said that,” he added, “is the effect going to be potentially more in patients at higher risk? Absolutely. I think these postmarket studies are really showing that after vaccination, if someone does get infected, this is a secondary option available to us that can prevent progression of the disease, which would likely be more severe in immunocompromised patients.”
Dr. Duggal was a coinvestigator on a recent study of more than 68,000 patients that showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in nonhospitalized patients infected with the Omicron variant, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions.
“In all groups, there was a signal toward benefit,” said Dr. Duggal. “These studies tell us that these drugs do remain valid options. But their use needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis with patients we feel are deteriorating or at a higher risk because of underlying disease processes.”
The study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Dr. Dormuth and Dr. Duggal report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
More evidence shows COVID-19’s link to risk for autoimmune disease
TOPLINE:
Research from South Korea provides additional evidence for the connection between COVID-19 and an increased risk for autoimmune conditions post infection.
METHODOLOGY:
- In this retrospective study, researchers identified 354,527 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from Oct. 8, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021.
- Researchers compared the COVID-19 group with 6,134,940 healthy individuals who had no evidence of COVID-19 to quantify the risk for autoimmune and autoinflammatory connective tissue disorders.
- Patients were followed until diagnosis, death, or end of study period (Dec. 31, 2021).
TAKEAWAY:
- Risks for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, Crohn’s disease, and sarcoidosis were higher in the COVID-19 group.
- Patients with more severe COVID-19 (admitted to the ICU) were at greater risk for many autoimmune conditions, including alopecia totalis, psoriasis, vitiligo, and vasculitis.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our results emphasize the need to focus on managing not only the acute stages of COVID-19 itself but also autoimmune diseases as complications of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Sung Ha Lim, MD, of Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea, was the first author of the study, published in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was retrospective and was composed almost exclusively of individuals from a single ethnicity. The study could have included individuals with COVID-19 in the control group who did not undergo PCR testing. The analysis did not include detailed information on each patient, including genetic information, that could have contributed to autoimmune disease risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a fund from the research program of the Korea Medical Institute and by grants from the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Research from South Korea provides additional evidence for the connection between COVID-19 and an increased risk for autoimmune conditions post infection.
METHODOLOGY:
- In this retrospective study, researchers identified 354,527 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from Oct. 8, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021.
- Researchers compared the COVID-19 group with 6,134,940 healthy individuals who had no evidence of COVID-19 to quantify the risk for autoimmune and autoinflammatory connective tissue disorders.
- Patients were followed until diagnosis, death, or end of study period (Dec. 31, 2021).
TAKEAWAY:
- Risks for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, Crohn’s disease, and sarcoidosis were higher in the COVID-19 group.
- Patients with more severe COVID-19 (admitted to the ICU) were at greater risk for many autoimmune conditions, including alopecia totalis, psoriasis, vitiligo, and vasculitis.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our results emphasize the need to focus on managing not only the acute stages of COVID-19 itself but also autoimmune diseases as complications of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Sung Ha Lim, MD, of Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea, was the first author of the study, published in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was retrospective and was composed almost exclusively of individuals from a single ethnicity. The study could have included individuals with COVID-19 in the control group who did not undergo PCR testing. The analysis did not include detailed information on each patient, including genetic information, that could have contributed to autoimmune disease risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a fund from the research program of the Korea Medical Institute and by grants from the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Research from South Korea provides additional evidence for the connection between COVID-19 and an increased risk for autoimmune conditions post infection.
METHODOLOGY:
- In this retrospective study, researchers identified 354,527 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from Oct. 8, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021.
- Researchers compared the COVID-19 group with 6,134,940 healthy individuals who had no evidence of COVID-19 to quantify the risk for autoimmune and autoinflammatory connective tissue disorders.
- Patients were followed until diagnosis, death, or end of study period (Dec. 31, 2021).
TAKEAWAY:
- Risks for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, Crohn’s disease, and sarcoidosis were higher in the COVID-19 group.
- Patients with more severe COVID-19 (admitted to the ICU) were at greater risk for many autoimmune conditions, including alopecia totalis, psoriasis, vitiligo, and vasculitis.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our results emphasize the need to focus on managing not only the acute stages of COVID-19 itself but also autoimmune diseases as complications of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Sung Ha Lim, MD, of Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea, was the first author of the study, published in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was retrospective and was composed almost exclusively of individuals from a single ethnicity. The study could have included individuals with COVID-19 in the control group who did not undergo PCR testing. The analysis did not include detailed information on each patient, including genetic information, that could have contributed to autoimmune disease risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a fund from the research program of the Korea Medical Institute and by grants from the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Preparing for the viral trifecta: RSV, influenza, and COVID-19
New armamentaria available to fight an old disease.
In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.
RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.1 The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.
Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.
What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.
In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.
RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
Influenza
So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.2 Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.3
Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
COVID-19
What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.4 Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.
We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.
2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.
3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.
4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.
New armamentaria available to fight an old disease.
New armamentaria available to fight an old disease.
In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.
RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.1 The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.
Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.
What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.
In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.
RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
Influenza
So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.2 Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.3
Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
COVID-19
What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.4 Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.
We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.
2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.
3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.
4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.
In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.
RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.1 The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.
Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.
What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.
In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.
RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
Influenza
So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.2 Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.3
Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
COVID-19
What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.4 Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.
We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.
2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.
3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.
4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.
COVID-19 virus infects coronary vasculature
TOPLINE:
, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
- All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
- To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.
TAKEAWAY:
- The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
- Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
- SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.
LIMITATIONS:
Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
- All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
- To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.
TAKEAWAY:
- The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
- Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
- SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.
LIMITATIONS:
Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
- All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
- To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.
TAKEAWAY:
- The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
- Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
- SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.
LIMITATIONS:
Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Study: Unexpected vaginal bleeding rises after COVID vaccination
The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.
After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.
The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.
They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.
About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.
Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.
After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.
The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.
They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.
About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.
Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.
After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.
The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal, and nonmenstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.
They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women, and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.
About half said the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up three to five times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and two to three times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.
Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer. “Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The study received funding through the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Research Council of Norway. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
Study: Antiviral med linked to COVID mutations that can spread
published in the online journal Nature.
There’s no evidence that molnupiravir, sold under the brand name Lagevrio, has caused the creation of more transmissible or severe variants of COVID, the study says, but researchers called for more scrutiny of the drug.
Researchers looked at 15 million COVID genomes and discovered that hallmark mutations linked to molnupiravir increased in 2022, especially in places where the drug was widely used, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Levels of the mutations were also found in populations where the drug was heavily prescribed, such as seniors.
Molnupiravir is an antiviral given to people after they show signs of having COVID-19. It interferes with the COVID-19 virus’s ability to make copies of itself, thus stopping the spread of the virus throughout the body and keeping the virus level low.
The study found the virus can sometimes survive molnupiravir, resulting in mutations that have spread to other people.
Theo Sanderson, PhD, the lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, told The Guardian that the implications of the mutations were unclear.
“The signature is very clear, but there aren’t any widely circulating variants that have the signature. At the moment there’s nothing that’s transmitted very widely that’s due to molnupiravir,” he said.
The study doesn’t say people should not use molnupiravir but calls for public health officials to scrutinize it.
“The observation that molnupiravir treatment has left a visible trace in global sequencing databases, including onwards transmission of molnupiravir-derived sequences, will be an important consideration for assessing the effects and evolutionary safety of this drug,” the researchers concluded.
When reached for comment, Merck questioned the evidence.
“The authors assume these mutations were associated with viral spread from molnupiravir-treated patients without documented evidence of that transmission. Instead, the authors rely on circumstantial associations between the region from which the sequence was identified and time frame of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available to draw their conclusions,” the company said.
The Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults in December 2021. The FDA has also authorized the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), an antiviral made by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
published in the online journal Nature.
There’s no evidence that molnupiravir, sold under the brand name Lagevrio, has caused the creation of more transmissible or severe variants of COVID, the study says, but researchers called for more scrutiny of the drug.
Researchers looked at 15 million COVID genomes and discovered that hallmark mutations linked to molnupiravir increased in 2022, especially in places where the drug was widely used, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Levels of the mutations were also found in populations where the drug was heavily prescribed, such as seniors.
Molnupiravir is an antiviral given to people after they show signs of having COVID-19. It interferes with the COVID-19 virus’s ability to make copies of itself, thus stopping the spread of the virus throughout the body and keeping the virus level low.
The study found the virus can sometimes survive molnupiravir, resulting in mutations that have spread to other people.
Theo Sanderson, PhD, the lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, told The Guardian that the implications of the mutations were unclear.
“The signature is very clear, but there aren’t any widely circulating variants that have the signature. At the moment there’s nothing that’s transmitted very widely that’s due to molnupiravir,” he said.
The study doesn’t say people should not use molnupiravir but calls for public health officials to scrutinize it.
“The observation that molnupiravir treatment has left a visible trace in global sequencing databases, including onwards transmission of molnupiravir-derived sequences, will be an important consideration for assessing the effects and evolutionary safety of this drug,” the researchers concluded.
When reached for comment, Merck questioned the evidence.
“The authors assume these mutations were associated with viral spread from molnupiravir-treated patients without documented evidence of that transmission. Instead, the authors rely on circumstantial associations between the region from which the sequence was identified and time frame of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available to draw their conclusions,” the company said.
The Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults in December 2021. The FDA has also authorized the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), an antiviral made by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
published in the online journal Nature.
There’s no evidence that molnupiravir, sold under the brand name Lagevrio, has caused the creation of more transmissible or severe variants of COVID, the study says, but researchers called for more scrutiny of the drug.
Researchers looked at 15 million COVID genomes and discovered that hallmark mutations linked to molnupiravir increased in 2022, especially in places where the drug was widely used, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Levels of the mutations were also found in populations where the drug was heavily prescribed, such as seniors.
Molnupiravir is an antiviral given to people after they show signs of having COVID-19. It interferes with the COVID-19 virus’s ability to make copies of itself, thus stopping the spread of the virus throughout the body and keeping the virus level low.
The study found the virus can sometimes survive molnupiravir, resulting in mutations that have spread to other people.
Theo Sanderson, PhD, the lead author on the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Francis Crick Institute in London, told The Guardian that the implications of the mutations were unclear.
“The signature is very clear, but there aren’t any widely circulating variants that have the signature. At the moment there’s nothing that’s transmitted very widely that’s due to molnupiravir,” he said.
The study doesn’t say people should not use molnupiravir but calls for public health officials to scrutinize it.
“The observation that molnupiravir treatment has left a visible trace in global sequencing databases, including onwards transmission of molnupiravir-derived sequences, will be an important consideration for assessing the effects and evolutionary safety of this drug,” the researchers concluded.
When reached for comment, Merck questioned the evidence.
“The authors assume these mutations were associated with viral spread from molnupiravir-treated patients without documented evidence of that transmission. Instead, the authors rely on circumstantial associations between the region from which the sequence was identified and time frame of sequence collection in countries where molnupiravir is available to draw their conclusions,” the company said.
The Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults in December 2021. The FDA has also authorized the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), an antiviral made by Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE
Paxlovid weaker against current COVID-19 variants
But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective.
Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.
The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.
For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg.
The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported.
The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.
“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”
Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective.
Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.
The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.
For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg.
The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported.
The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.
“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”
Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective.
Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.
The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.
For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg.
The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported.
The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.
“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”
Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Creatine may improve key long COVID symptoms: Small study
Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.
Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .
“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.
They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
Significant reductions in symptoms
Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.
At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.
Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.
Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).
Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.
“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.
The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
Unanswered questions
Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.
“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”
Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).
“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”
Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.
She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.
Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.
“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.
That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
No major side effects
No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.
Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).
Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.
The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.
Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.
Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .
“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.
They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
Significant reductions in symptoms
Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.
At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.
Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.
Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).
Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.
“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.
The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
Unanswered questions
Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.
“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”
Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).
“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”
Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.
She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.
Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.
“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.
That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
No major side effects
No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.
Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).
Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.
The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.
Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.
Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .
“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.
They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
Significant reductions in symptoms
Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.
At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.
Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.
Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).
Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.
“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.
The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
Unanswered questions
Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.
“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”
Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).
“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”
Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.
She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.
Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.
“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.
That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
No major side effects
No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.
Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).
Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.
The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.
Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
FROM FOOD, SCIENCE & NUTRITION
Paxlovid and Lagevrio benefit COVID outpatients in Omicron era
The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.
Version 1 appeared in late 2022.
While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
Practice points
- Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.
New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”
- Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.
There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.
“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.
The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).
Review details
Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.
It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).
Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).
“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.
The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.
Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.
Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”
Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.
The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.
Version 1 appeared in late 2022.
While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
Practice points
- Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.
New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”
- Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.
There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.
“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.
The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).
Review details
Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.
It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).
Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).
“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.
The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.
Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.
Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”
Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.
The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.
Version 1 appeared in late 2022.
While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
Practice points
- Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.
New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”
- Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.
There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.
“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.
The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).
Review details
Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.
It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).
Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).
“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.
The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.
Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.
Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”
Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE