COVID-19 Updates

To the Editor:

Vitiligo is a depigmentation disorder that results from the loss of melanocytes in the epidermis.¹ The most widely accepted pathophysiology for melanocyte destruction in vitiligo is an autoimmune process involving dysregulated cytokine production and autoreactive T-cell activation.¹ Individuals with cutaneous autoinflammatory conditions currently are vital patient populations warranting research, as their susceptibility to COVID-19 infection may differ from the general population. We previously found a small increased risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis,² which suggests that other dermatologic conditions also may impact COVID-19 risk. The risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with vitiligo remains largely unknown. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with vitiligo compared with those without vitiligo utilizing claims data from the COVID-19 Research Database (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/).

Claims were evaluated for patients aged 3 years and older with a vitiligo diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code L80) that was made between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020. Individuals without a vitiligo diagnosis during the same period were placed (4:1 ratio) in the control group and were matched with study group patients for age and sex. All comorbidity variables and vitiligo diagnoses were extracted from ICD-10 codes that were given prior to a diagnosis of COVID-19. We then constructed multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for measured confounders to evaluate if vitiligo was associated with higher risk for COVID-19 infection after January 1, 2020.

The vitiligo and nonvitiligo cohorts included 40,363 and 161,452 patients, respectively (Table 1). Logistic regression analysis with adjustment for confounding variables, including high comorbid risk factors (Table 2) revealed that patients with a diagnosis of vitiligo had significantly increased odds of COVID-19 infection compared with patients without vitiligo (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.37-1.57; P<.001)(Table 3). Additionally, subgroup logistic analyses for sex, age, and exclusion of patients who were HIV positive revealed that females with vitiligo had higher odds of contracting COVID-19 than males with vitiligo (Table 3).

CT113004030_Table1.jpg

Our results showed that patients with vitiligo had a higher relative risk for contracting COVID-19 than individuals without vitiligo. It has been reported that the prevalence of COVID-19 is higher among patients with autoimmune diseases compared to the general population.³ Additionally, a handful of vitiligo patients are managed with immunosuppressive agents that may further weaken their immune response.¹ Moreover, survey results from dermatologists managing vitiligo patients revealed that physicians were fairly comfortable prescribing immunosuppressants and encouraging in-office phototherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ As a result, more patients may have been attending in-office visits for their phototherapy, which may have increased their risk for COVID-19. Although these factors play a role in ­COVID-19 infection rates, the underlying immune dysregulation in vitiligo in relation to COVID-19 remains unknown and should be further explored.

CT113004030_Table2.jpg

Our findings are limited by the use of ICD-10 codes, the inability to control for all potential confounding variables, the lack of data regarding the stage of vitiligo, and the absence of data for undiagnosed COVID-19 infections. In addition, patients with vitiligo may be more likely to seek care, potentially increasing their rates of COVID-19 testing. The inability to identify the stage of vitiligo during enrollment in the database may have altered our results, as individuals with active disease have increased levels of IFN-γ. Increased secretion of IFN-γ also potentially helps in the clearance of COVID-19 infection.¹ Future studies should investigate this relationship via planned ­COVID-19 testing, identification of vitiligo stage, and controlling for other associated comorbidities.

CT113004030_Table3.jpg

To the Editor:

Vitiligo is a depigmentation disorder that results from the loss of melanocytes in the epidermis.¹ The most widely accepted pathophysiology for melanocyte destruction in vitiligo is an autoimmune process involving dysregulated cytokine production and autoreactive T-cell activation.¹ Individuals with cutaneous autoinflammatory conditions currently are vital patient populations warranting research, as their susceptibility to COVID-19 infection may differ from the general population. We previously found a small increased risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis,² which suggests that other dermatologic conditions also may impact COVID-19 risk. The risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with vitiligo remains largely unknown. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with vitiligo compared with those without vitiligo utilizing claims data from the COVID-19 Research Database (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/).

Claims were evaluated for patients aged 3 years and older with a vitiligo diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code L80) that was made between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020. Individuals without a vitiligo diagnosis during the same period were placed (4:1 ratio) in the control group and were matched with study group patients for age and sex. All comorbidity variables and vitiligo diagnoses were extracted from ICD-10 codes that were given prior to a diagnosis of COVID-19. We then constructed multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for measured confounders to evaluate if vitiligo was associated with higher risk for COVID-19 infection after January 1, 2020.

The vitiligo and nonvitiligo cohorts included 40,363 and 161,452 patients, respectively (Table 1). Logistic regression analysis with adjustment for confounding variables, including high comorbid risk factors (Table 2) revealed that patients with a diagnosis of vitiligo had significantly increased odds of COVID-19 infection compared with patients without vitiligo (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.37-1.57; P<.001)(Table 3). Additionally, subgroup logistic analyses for sex, age, and exclusion of patients who were HIV positive revealed that females with vitiligo had higher odds of contracting COVID-19 than males with vitiligo (Table 3).

CT113004030_Table1.jpg

Our results showed that patients with vitiligo had a higher relative risk for contracting COVID-19 than individuals without vitiligo. It has been reported that the prevalence of COVID-19 is higher among patients with autoimmune diseases compared to the general population.³ Additionally, a handful of vitiligo patients are managed with immunosuppressive agents that may further weaken their immune response.¹ Moreover, survey results from dermatologists managing vitiligo patients revealed that physicians were fairly comfortable prescribing immunosuppressants and encouraging in-office phototherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ As a result, more patients may have been attending in-office visits for their phototherapy, which may have increased their risk for COVID-19. Although these factors play a role in ­COVID-19 infection rates, the underlying immune dysregulation in vitiligo in relation to COVID-19 remains unknown and should be further explored.

CT113004030_Table2.jpg

Our findings are limited by the use of ICD-10 codes, the inability to control for all potential confounding variables, the lack of data regarding the stage of vitiligo, and the absence of data for undiagnosed COVID-19 infections. In addition, patients with vitiligo may be more likely to seek care, potentially increasing their rates of COVID-19 testing. The inability to identify the stage of vitiligo during enrollment in the database may have altered our results, as individuals with active disease have increased levels of IFN-γ. Increased secretion of IFN-γ also potentially helps in the clearance of COVID-19 infection.¹ Future studies should investigate this relationship via planned ­COVID-19 testing, identification of vitiligo stage, and controlling for other associated comorbidities.

CT113004030_Table3.jpg

To the Editor:

Vitiligo is a depigmentation disorder that results from the loss of melanocytes in the epidermis.¹ The most widely accepted pathophysiology for melanocyte destruction in vitiligo is an autoimmune process involving dysregulated cytokine production and autoreactive T-cell activation.¹ Individuals with cutaneous autoinflammatory conditions currently are vital patient populations warranting research, as their susceptibility to COVID-19 infection may differ from the general population. We previously found a small increased risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis,² which suggests that other dermatologic conditions also may impact COVID-19 risk. The risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with vitiligo remains largely unknown. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the risk for COVID-19 infection in patients with vitiligo compared with those without vitiligo utilizing claims data from the COVID-19 Research Database (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/).

Claims were evaluated for patients aged 3 years and older with a vitiligo diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code L80) that was made between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2020. Individuals without a vitiligo diagnosis during the same period were placed (4:1 ratio) in the control group and were matched with study group patients for age and sex. All comorbidity variables and vitiligo diagnoses were extracted from ICD-10 codes that were given prior to a diagnosis of COVID-19. We then constructed multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for measured confounders to evaluate if vitiligo was associated with higher risk for COVID-19 infection after January 1, 2020.

The vitiligo and nonvitiligo cohorts included 40,363 and 161,452 patients, respectively (Table 1). Logistic regression analysis with adjustment for confounding variables, including high comorbid risk factors (Table 2) revealed that patients with a diagnosis of vitiligo had significantly increased odds of COVID-19 infection compared with patients without vitiligo (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.37-1.57; P<.001)(Table 3). Additionally, subgroup logistic analyses for sex, age, and exclusion of patients who were HIV positive revealed that females with vitiligo had higher odds of contracting COVID-19 than males with vitiligo (Table 3).

CT113004030_Table1.jpg

Our results showed that patients with vitiligo had a higher relative risk for contracting COVID-19 than individuals without vitiligo. It has been reported that the prevalence of COVID-19 is higher among patients with autoimmune diseases compared to the general population.³ Additionally, a handful of vitiligo patients are managed with immunosuppressive agents that may further weaken their immune response.¹ Moreover, survey results from dermatologists managing vitiligo patients revealed that physicians were fairly comfortable prescribing immunosuppressants and encouraging in-office phototherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ As a result, more patients may have been attending in-office visits for their phototherapy, which may have increased their risk for COVID-19. Although these factors play a role in ­COVID-19 infection rates, the underlying immune dysregulation in vitiligo in relation to COVID-19 remains unknown and should be further explored.

CT113004030_Table2.jpg

Our findings are limited by the use of ICD-10 codes, the inability to control for all potential confounding variables, the lack of data regarding the stage of vitiligo, and the absence of data for undiagnosed COVID-19 infections. In addition, patients with vitiligo may be more likely to seek care, potentially increasing their rates of COVID-19 testing. The inability to identify the stage of vitiligo during enrollment in the database may have altered our results, as individuals with active disease have increased levels of IFN-γ. Increased secretion of IFN-γ also potentially helps in the clearance of COVID-19 infection.¹ Future studies should investigate this relationship via planned ­COVID-19 testing, identification of vitiligo stage, and controlling for other associated comorbidities.

CT113004030_Table3.jpg

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.

A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.

“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in CMAJ.
 

Need vs Resources

Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.

“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.

The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.

Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).

The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.

“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.

The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.

“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
 

Helping Primary Care Physicians

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”

Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.

“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”

The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.

A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.

“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in CMAJ.
 

Need vs Resources

Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.

“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.

The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.

Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).

The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.

“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.

The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.

“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
 

Helping Primary Care Physicians

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”

Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.

“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”

The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.

A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.

“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in CMAJ.
 

Need vs Resources

Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.

“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.

The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.

Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).

The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.

“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.

The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.

“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
 

Helping Primary Care Physicians

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”

Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.

“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”

The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)

What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.

Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.

Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.

While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.

Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.

Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.

Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.

Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
 

Promising Treatments Have Emerged

Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.

Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.

“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.

Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.

“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.

Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.

Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.

It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
 

Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies

Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.

Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.

Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.

Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.

She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
 

Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress

Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.

“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.

He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.

“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”

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

Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)

What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.

Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.

Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.

While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.

Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.

Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.

Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.

Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
 

Promising Treatments Have Emerged

Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.

Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.

“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.

Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.

“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.

Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.

Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.

It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
 

Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies

Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.

Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.

Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.

Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.

She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
 

Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress

Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.

“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.

He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.

“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”

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

Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)

What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.

Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.

Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.

While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.

Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.

Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.

Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.

Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
 

Promising Treatments Have Emerged

Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.

Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.

“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.

Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.

“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.

Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.

Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.

It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
 

Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies

Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.

Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.

Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.

Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.

She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
 

Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress

Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.

“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.

Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.

He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.

“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”

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

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE: 

There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED healthcare personnel called Project COVERED was conducted from May to December 2020 to evaluate the following outcomes:
• The possibility of infected ED personnel reporting to work
• The burden of COVID-19 symptoms on an ED personnel’s work status
• The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection levels and ED staffing
• Project COVERED enrolled 1673 ED healthcare personnel with 29,825 person weeks of observational data from 25 geographically diverse EDs.
• The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or IgG antibody testing at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every four subsequent weeks through week 20.
• Investigators also collected weekly data on ED staffing and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Despite the absence of widespread natural immunity or COVID-19 vaccine availability during the time of this study, only 4.5% of ED healthcare personnel tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections, with more than half (57.3%) not experiencing any symptoms.
• Most personnel (83%) who experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 reported working at least one shift in the ED and nearly all of them continued to work until they received laboratory confirmation of their infection.
• The working time lost as a result of COVID-19 and related concerns was minimal, as 89 healthcare personnel reported 90 person weeks of missed work (0.3% of all weeks).
• During this study, physician-staffing levels ranged from 98.7% to 102.0% of normal staffing, with similar values noted for nursing and nonclinical staffs. Reduced staffing was rare, even during COVID-19 surges.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED healthcare personnel called Project COVERED was conducted from May to December 2020 to evaluate the following outcomes:
• The possibility of infected ED personnel reporting to work
• The burden of COVID-19 symptoms on an ED personnel’s work status
• The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection levels and ED staffing
• Project COVERED enrolled 1673 ED healthcare personnel with 29,825 person weeks of observational data from 25 geographically diverse EDs.
• The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or IgG antibody testing at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every four subsequent weeks through week 20.
• Investigators also collected weekly data on ED staffing and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Despite the absence of widespread natural immunity or COVID-19 vaccine availability during the time of this study, only 4.5% of ED healthcare personnel tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections, with more than half (57.3%) not experiencing any symptoms.
• Most personnel (83%) who experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 reported working at least one shift in the ED and nearly all of them continued to work until they received laboratory confirmation of their infection.
• The working time lost as a result of COVID-19 and related concerns was minimal, as 89 healthcare personnel reported 90 person weeks of missed work (0.3% of all weeks).
• During this study, physician-staffing levels ranged from 98.7% to 102.0% of normal staffing, with similar values noted for nursing and nonclinical staffs. Reduced staffing was rare, even during COVID-19 surges.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED healthcare personnel called Project COVERED was conducted from May to December 2020 to evaluate the following outcomes:
• The possibility of infected ED personnel reporting to work
• The burden of COVID-19 symptoms on an ED personnel’s work status
• The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection levels and ED staffing
• Project COVERED enrolled 1673 ED healthcare personnel with 29,825 person weeks of observational data from 25 geographically diverse EDs.
• The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or IgG antibody testing at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every four subsequent weeks through week 20.
• Investigators also collected weekly data on ED staffing and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Despite the absence of widespread natural immunity or COVID-19 vaccine availability during the time of this study, only 4.5% of ED healthcare personnel tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections, with more than half (57.3%) not experiencing any symptoms.
• Most personnel (83%) who experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 reported working at least one shift in the ED and nearly all of them continued to work until they received laboratory confirmation of their infection.
• The working time lost as a result of COVID-19 and related concerns was minimal, as 89 healthcare personnel reported 90 person weeks of missed work (0.3% of all weeks).
• During this study, physician-staffing levels ranged from 98.7% to 102.0% of normal staffing, with similar values noted for nursing and nonclinical staffs. Reduced staffing was rare, even during COVID-19 surges.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I would have preferred to start this Letter reporting to you that the pandemic is fading out of sight in our rear view mirror. However, I think it is more accurate to say the pandemic is sitting in that blind spot off our passenger side rear fender. Unless you’re like one of those cars with “blind spot detection” blinking a warning, you probably aren’t giving the pandemic much thought. However, three journalists at The New York Times have taken this lull in the pandemic’s newsworthiness to consider the consequences of school closure and remote learning.

From what you may have read and heard, and possibly experienced firsthand, you have a sense that keeping children out of school has been awash in negatives. These journalists looked at all the data they could find and their article is replete with graphs and references. I will just summarize some of what they discovered.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

“While poverty and other factors played a role, remote learning was a key driver in academic declines ...” They found there was a direct relationship between the length of school closure and the severity of academic skill loss. The journalists noted that “some time in school was better than no time.” And sadly, “most students have not caught up.”

Poverty played a significant role, with students in economically challenged communities experiencing steeper losses in academics. The reporters quoted Stanford Professor Sean F. Reardon, EdD, who has said “A community’s poverty rate and length of school closures had a ‘roughly equal’ effect.” Poorer school districts tended to continue remote learning longer than those in more well off communities.

At the very beginning of the pandemic, when we were floating in a sea of unknowns, the decision to close schools and take advantage of the new technology that made remote learning possible sounded like the best and maybe only option. However, looking back, Dr. Sean O’Leary, who helped craft AAP guidelines, admits “we probably kept schools closed longer than we should have.”

Early signs that children were not as likely as adults to get sick, and that students posed little threat to others in the school environment, were not taken seriously enough. Too much time and energy was wasted in deep cleaning even after it was clear the virus was airborne. Opening windows that had been painted shut would have been a much better investment.

As it became more apparent that school closures were not having the deterrent effect we had hoped for, there were still communities that resisted. The Times’ reporters noted that teachers’ unions and Democratic cities tended to be more cautious about reopening. And clearly there was political flavor to how communities responded. Masking is probably one of the best examples where emotions and politics colored our responses.

Are there things we could have done differently? One can certainly understand why teachers might have been cautious about returning to in-school learning. With more than a quarter of teachers in this country being older than 50 (16% over 55) and nearly 80% of elementary and middle school teachers self-reporting that they are obese or overweight, educators represent a group that we know now is more vulnerable to complications from COVID. In retrospect, had we understood more about the virus and the downsides of remote learning, the government could have offered paid leave to teachers who felt vulnerable. Then, by expediting the transition of the younger, less vulnerable college students in their final years of training into the workforce earlier could have kept schools open until we were up to speed with vaccines and treatment. But the water has spilled over the dam. We can hope that we as a nation have learned that making frequent evaluations of our strategies and being flexible enough to make changes will help in future pandemics. Unfortunately, those RNA viruses are fast mutators and clever adapters. Strategies we thought were working the first time may not succeed with new variants.

We have now learned that, in general, remote learning was a bust. My grandkids knew it at the time. It’s not just the learning piece. It’s about the social contact with peers that can provide comfort and support when the adults around at home may be anxious and depressed. School is a place you can be physically active away from 24/7 television at home. Adapting to going to school can be difficult for some young children in the beginning because of separation anxiety, but for the vast majority of children doing the school thing is a habit that is quickly rewarded and reinforced daily.

Children learn in school because they are rubbing elbows with other kids who are learning. While some peers may be distracting, the data suggest the distractions of home are far more of a problem. Most children I know were eager to get back in school because that’s where their friends were. But, getting back in the habit of going to school can be difficult for some, especially those who have been less successful in the past. Not surprisingly, the longer the hiatus the more difficult the reentry becomes.

The big lesson we mustn’t forget is that being in school is far more valuable than we ever imagined. And, when we are considering our options in future pandemics and natural disasters, we should be giving much more weight to in-school learning than we have in the past.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I would have preferred to start this Letter reporting to you that the pandemic is fading out of sight in our rear view mirror. However, I think it is more accurate to say the pandemic is sitting in that blind spot off our passenger side rear fender. Unless you’re like one of those cars with “blind spot detection” blinking a warning, you probably aren’t giving the pandemic much thought. However, three journalists at The New York Times have taken this lull in the pandemic’s newsworthiness to consider the consequences of school closure and remote learning.

From what you may have read and heard, and possibly experienced firsthand, you have a sense that keeping children out of school has been awash in negatives. These journalists looked at all the data they could find and their article is replete with graphs and references. I will just summarize some of what they discovered.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

“While poverty and other factors played a role, remote learning was a key driver in academic declines ...” They found there was a direct relationship between the length of school closure and the severity of academic skill loss. The journalists noted that “some time in school was better than no time.” And sadly, “most students have not caught up.”

Poverty played a significant role, with students in economically challenged communities experiencing steeper losses in academics. The reporters quoted Stanford Professor Sean F. Reardon, EdD, who has said “A community’s poverty rate and length of school closures had a ‘roughly equal’ effect.” Poorer school districts tended to continue remote learning longer than those in more well off communities.

At the very beginning of the pandemic, when we were floating in a sea of unknowns, the decision to close schools and take advantage of the new technology that made remote learning possible sounded like the best and maybe only option. However, looking back, Dr. Sean O’Leary, who helped craft AAP guidelines, admits “we probably kept schools closed longer than we should have.”

Early signs that children were not as likely as adults to get sick, and that students posed little threat to others in the school environment, were not taken seriously enough. Too much time and energy was wasted in deep cleaning even after it was clear the virus was airborne. Opening windows that had been painted shut would have been a much better investment.

As it became more apparent that school closures were not having the deterrent effect we had hoped for, there were still communities that resisted. The Times’ reporters noted that teachers’ unions and Democratic cities tended to be more cautious about reopening. And clearly there was political flavor to how communities responded. Masking is probably one of the best examples where emotions and politics colored our responses.

Are there things we could have done differently? One can certainly understand why teachers might have been cautious about returning to in-school learning. With more than a quarter of teachers in this country being older than 50 (16% over 55) and nearly 80% of elementary and middle school teachers self-reporting that they are obese or overweight, educators represent a group that we know now is more vulnerable to complications from COVID. In retrospect, had we understood more about the virus and the downsides of remote learning, the government could have offered paid leave to teachers who felt vulnerable. Then, by expediting the transition of the younger, less vulnerable college students in their final years of training into the workforce earlier could have kept schools open until we were up to speed with vaccines and treatment. But the water has spilled over the dam. We can hope that we as a nation have learned that making frequent evaluations of our strategies and being flexible enough to make changes will help in future pandemics. Unfortunately, those RNA viruses are fast mutators and clever adapters. Strategies we thought were working the first time may not succeed with new variants.

We have now learned that, in general, remote learning was a bust. My grandkids knew it at the time. It’s not just the learning piece. It’s about the social contact with peers that can provide comfort and support when the adults around at home may be anxious and depressed. School is a place you can be physically active away from 24/7 television at home. Adapting to going to school can be difficult for some young children in the beginning because of separation anxiety, but for the vast majority of children doing the school thing is a habit that is quickly rewarded and reinforced daily.

Children learn in school because they are rubbing elbows with other kids who are learning. While some peers may be distracting, the data suggest the distractions of home are far more of a problem. Most children I know were eager to get back in school because that’s where their friends were. But, getting back in the habit of going to school can be difficult for some, especially those who have been less successful in the past. Not surprisingly, the longer the hiatus the more difficult the reentry becomes.

The big lesson we mustn’t forget is that being in school is far more valuable than we ever imagined. And, when we are considering our options in future pandemics and natural disasters, we should be giving much more weight to in-school learning than we have in the past.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I would have preferred to start this Letter reporting to you that the pandemic is fading out of sight in our rear view mirror. However, I think it is more accurate to say the pandemic is sitting in that blind spot off our passenger side rear fender. Unless you’re like one of those cars with “blind spot detection” blinking a warning, you probably aren’t giving the pandemic much thought. However, three journalists at The New York Times have taken this lull in the pandemic’s newsworthiness to consider the consequences of school closure and remote learning.

From what you may have read and heard, and possibly experienced firsthand, you have a sense that keeping children out of school has been awash in negatives. These journalists looked at all the data they could find and their article is replete with graphs and references. I will just summarize some of what they discovered.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

“While poverty and other factors played a role, remote learning was a key driver in academic declines ...” They found there was a direct relationship between the length of school closure and the severity of academic skill loss. The journalists noted that “some time in school was better than no time.” And sadly, “most students have not caught up.”

Poverty played a significant role, with students in economically challenged communities experiencing steeper losses in academics. The reporters quoted Stanford Professor Sean F. Reardon, EdD, who has said “A community’s poverty rate and length of school closures had a ‘roughly equal’ effect.” Poorer school districts tended to continue remote learning longer than those in more well off communities.

At the very beginning of the pandemic, when we were floating in a sea of unknowns, the decision to close schools and take advantage of the new technology that made remote learning possible sounded like the best and maybe only option. However, looking back, Dr. Sean O’Leary, who helped craft AAP guidelines, admits “we probably kept schools closed longer than we should have.”

Early signs that children were not as likely as adults to get sick, and that students posed little threat to others in the school environment, were not taken seriously enough. Too much time and energy was wasted in deep cleaning even after it was clear the virus was airborne. Opening windows that had been painted shut would have been a much better investment.

As it became more apparent that school closures were not having the deterrent effect we had hoped for, there were still communities that resisted. The Times’ reporters noted that teachers’ unions and Democratic cities tended to be more cautious about reopening. And clearly there was political flavor to how communities responded. Masking is probably one of the best examples where emotions and politics colored our responses.

Are there things we could have done differently? One can certainly understand why teachers might have been cautious about returning to in-school learning. With more than a quarter of teachers in this country being older than 50 (16% over 55) and nearly 80% of elementary and middle school teachers self-reporting that they are obese or overweight, educators represent a group that we know now is more vulnerable to complications from COVID. In retrospect, had we understood more about the virus and the downsides of remote learning, the government could have offered paid leave to teachers who felt vulnerable. Then, by expediting the transition of the younger, less vulnerable college students in their final years of training into the workforce earlier could have kept schools open until we were up to speed with vaccines and treatment. But the water has spilled over the dam. We can hope that we as a nation have learned that making frequent evaluations of our strategies and being flexible enough to make changes will help in future pandemics. Unfortunately, those RNA viruses are fast mutators and clever adapters. Strategies we thought were working the first time may not succeed with new variants.

We have now learned that, in general, remote learning was a bust. My grandkids knew it at the time. It’s not just the learning piece. It’s about the social contact with peers that can provide comfort and support when the adults around at home may be anxious and depressed. School is a place you can be physically active away from 24/7 television at home. Adapting to going to school can be difficult for some young children in the beginning because of separation anxiety, but for the vast majority of children doing the school thing is a habit that is quickly rewarded and reinforced daily.

Children learn in school because they are rubbing elbows with other kids who are learning. While some peers may be distracting, the data suggest the distractions of home are far more of a problem. Most children I know were eager to get back in school because that’s where their friends were. But, getting back in the habit of going to school can be difficult for some, especially those who have been less successful in the past. Not surprisingly, the longer the hiatus the more difficult the reentry becomes.

The big lesson we mustn’t forget is that being in school is far more valuable than we ever imagined. And, when we are considering our options in future pandemics and natural disasters, we should be giving much more weight to in-school learning than we have in the past.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies for patients may need to be briefly halted during treatment for COVID-19, but it does not escalate IBD flares, with prior vaccination for COVID-19 helping reduce complications from the virus.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with IBD who receive immunosuppressive agents are at an increased risk of developing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the effects of COVID-19 vaccination and treatment on the outcomes in patients with IBD are less known.
• Researchers assessed the effect of COVID-19 medications in 127 patients with IBD (age ≥ 18 years; 54% women) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after the advent of vaccines and release of antiviral therapies.
• Patients were stratified into those who received treatment for COVID-19 (n = 44), defined as the use of antivirals and/or intravenous antibodies, and those who did not receive treatment for COVID-19 (n = 83).
• The primary outcome was the development of a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by the need for oxygen supplements, corticosteroids and/or antibiotic treatment, or hospitalization).
• The secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients who had their IBD therapy withheld and rates of IBD flare post COVID-19.

TAKEAWAY:

• The likelihood of being treated for COVID-19 was higher in patients on corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.61; P = .002) or in those undergoing advanced IBD therapies (OR, 2.78; P = .041) prior to infection.
• Advanced age at the time of infection (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.06; P = .018) and corticosteroid treatment prior to contracting COVID-19 (aOR, 9.86; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for severe infection.
• After adjustment for multiple factors, the likelihood of withholding IBD treatment was higher in patients being treated for COVID-19 (aOR, 6.95; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with IBD on advanced therapies were frequently treated for acute COVID-19. Although COVID-19 treatment was associated with temporary withholding of IBD therapy, it did not result in increased IBD flares,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Laura C. Sahyoun, MD, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

LIMITATIONS:

Owing to the small sample size, the outcomes comparing antivirals to intravenous antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 strain prevalence could not be assessed. This single-center study also may not reflect the different clinical practices pertaining to IBD and COVID-19 treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. One author reported receiving speaker fees and being part of advisory boards, and another author received research support and reported being a part of advisory boards.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.