News

An estimated 3 in every 10 white-tailed deer in the United States have had COVID-19, and new research suggests deer populations could be a source of virus mutations that may be passed to humans.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which led the research project, humans transmitted the virus to deer at least 100 times. The virus then spread widely among free-ranging deer populations, and there were three possible cases of the deer transmitting the virus to humans.

The data comes from tests done between November 2021 and April 2022 on more than 12,000 deer found across half of the United States. Sequencing of the virus found in the deer showed that deer had been exposed to all of the prominent variants, including Alpha, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron.

Some of the findings about transmission were published in the journal Nature Communications, in which researchers noted that in addition to being identified in deer, the virus has been found in wild and domestic animals, including mink, rats, otters, ferrets, hamsters, gorillas, cats, dogs, lions, and tigers. Animal-to-human transmission has been documented or suspected in mink and domestic cats, in addition to white-tailed deer.

The findings are important because the animal populations can become “reservoirs ... in which the virus circulates covertly, persisting in the population and can be transmitted to other animals or humans potentially causing disease outbreaks,” according to the paper, which was a collaboration among scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CDC, and the University of Missouri–Columbia.

In the three cases of possible deer-to-human transmission, researchers said that mutated versions of the virus previously found only in deer had been found in COVID test samples taken from one person in North Carolina and two people in Massachusetts. Those deer-specific mutated versions of the virus have not been found in any other human samples, lending evidence that the mutations occurred within deer.

“Deer regularly interact with humans and are commonly found in human environments – near our homes, pets, wastewater, and trash,” researcher and University of Missouri–Columbia professor Xiu-Feng “Henry” Wan, PhD, said in a statement. “The potential for SARS-CoV-2, or any zoonotic disease, to persist and evolve in wildlife populations can pose unique public health risks.”

In the Nature Communications paper, the researchers suggested that deer may be exposed to the virus from human food waste, masks, or other waste products. The authors concluded that further study is needed to determine how virus transmission occurs between deer and humans.

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

An estimated 3 in every 10 white-tailed deer in the United States have had COVID-19, and new research suggests deer populations could be a source of virus mutations that may be passed to humans.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which led the research project, humans transmitted the virus to deer at least 100 times. The virus then spread widely among free-ranging deer populations, and there were three possible cases of the deer transmitting the virus to humans.

The data comes from tests done between November 2021 and April 2022 on more than 12,000 deer found across half of the United States. Sequencing of the virus found in the deer showed that deer had been exposed to all of the prominent variants, including Alpha, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron.

Some of the findings about transmission were published in the journal Nature Communications, in which researchers noted that in addition to being identified in deer, the virus has been found in wild and domestic animals, including mink, rats, otters, ferrets, hamsters, gorillas, cats, dogs, lions, and tigers. Animal-to-human transmission has been documented or suspected in mink and domestic cats, in addition to white-tailed deer.

The findings are important because the animal populations can become “reservoirs ... in which the virus circulates covertly, persisting in the population and can be transmitted to other animals or humans potentially causing disease outbreaks,” according to the paper, which was a collaboration among scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CDC, and the University of Missouri–Columbia.

In the three cases of possible deer-to-human transmission, researchers said that mutated versions of the virus previously found only in deer had been found in COVID test samples taken from one person in North Carolina and two people in Massachusetts. Those deer-specific mutated versions of the virus have not been found in any other human samples, lending evidence that the mutations occurred within deer.

“Deer regularly interact with humans and are commonly found in human environments – near our homes, pets, wastewater, and trash,” researcher and University of Missouri–Columbia professor Xiu-Feng “Henry” Wan, PhD, said in a statement. “The potential for SARS-CoV-2, or any zoonotic disease, to persist and evolve in wildlife populations can pose unique public health risks.”

In the Nature Communications paper, the researchers suggested that deer may be exposed to the virus from human food waste, masks, or other waste products. The authors concluded that further study is needed to determine how virus transmission occurs between deer and humans.

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

An estimated 3 in every 10 white-tailed deer in the United States have had COVID-19, and new research suggests deer populations could be a source of virus mutations that may be passed to humans.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which led the research project, humans transmitted the virus to deer at least 100 times. The virus then spread widely among free-ranging deer populations, and there were three possible cases of the deer transmitting the virus to humans.

The data comes from tests done between November 2021 and April 2022 on more than 12,000 deer found across half of the United States. Sequencing of the virus found in the deer showed that deer had been exposed to all of the prominent variants, including Alpha, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron.

Some of the findings about transmission were published in the journal Nature Communications, in which researchers noted that in addition to being identified in deer, the virus has been found in wild and domestic animals, including mink, rats, otters, ferrets, hamsters, gorillas, cats, dogs, lions, and tigers. Animal-to-human transmission has been documented or suspected in mink and domestic cats, in addition to white-tailed deer.

The findings are important because the animal populations can become “reservoirs ... in which the virus circulates covertly, persisting in the population and can be transmitted to other animals or humans potentially causing disease outbreaks,” according to the paper, which was a collaboration among scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CDC, and the University of Missouri–Columbia.

In the three cases of possible deer-to-human transmission, researchers said that mutated versions of the virus previously found only in deer had been found in COVID test samples taken from one person in North Carolina and two people in Massachusetts. Those deer-specific mutated versions of the virus have not been found in any other human samples, lending evidence that the mutations occurred within deer.

“Deer regularly interact with humans and are commonly found in human environments – near our homes, pets, wastewater, and trash,” researcher and University of Missouri–Columbia professor Xiu-Feng “Henry” Wan, PhD, said in a statement. “The potential for SARS-CoV-2, or any zoonotic disease, to persist and evolve in wildlife populations can pose unique public health risks.”

In the Nature Communications paper, the researchers suggested that deer may be exposed to the virus from human food waste, masks, or other waste products. The authors concluded that further study is needed to determine how virus transmission occurs between deer and humans.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new catheter designed to treat urinary tract symptoms of an enlarged prostate, also known as benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).

Designed and marketed by Urotronic (Plymouth, Minn.), the Optilume BPH Catheter System employs mechanical dilation to relieve obstruction of the prostate and then delivers paclitaxel to aid in prostate healing. The device is used in an outpatient setting and is less invasive than other procedures.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“There’s nothing else like Optilume BPH that’s currently available, it’s the only treatment option that requires no cutting, burning, steaming, or implants,” said Urotronic President and CEO David Perry in a press release.

Two randomized trials, EVEREST-1 and PINNACLE, both showed that the Optilume BPH system improved urinary flow rate and decreased the amount of urine stored in the bladder following urination. Men who used the OPTILUME device were able to ejaculate normally and reported no sexual difficulties.

“Optilume BPH is the next generation of minimally invasive technology, creating a new drug device space among BPH therapies,” Steven A. Kaplan, MD, professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the press release. Dr. Kaplan led the EVEREST-1 and PINNACLE studies, which Urotronic funded.

More than 80% of men older than age 70 have an enlarged prostate, based on autopsy analyses.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new catheter designed to treat urinary tract symptoms of an enlarged prostate, also known as benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).

Designed and marketed by Urotronic (Plymouth, Minn.), the Optilume BPH Catheter System employs mechanical dilation to relieve obstruction of the prostate and then delivers paclitaxel to aid in prostate healing. The device is used in an outpatient setting and is less invasive than other procedures.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“There’s nothing else like Optilume BPH that’s currently available, it’s the only treatment option that requires no cutting, burning, steaming, or implants,” said Urotronic President and CEO David Perry in a press release.

Two randomized trials, EVEREST-1 and PINNACLE, both showed that the Optilume BPH system improved urinary flow rate and decreased the amount of urine stored in the bladder following urination. Men who used the OPTILUME device were able to ejaculate normally and reported no sexual difficulties.

“Optilume BPH is the next generation of minimally invasive technology, creating a new drug device space among BPH therapies,” Steven A. Kaplan, MD, professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the press release. Dr. Kaplan led the EVEREST-1 and PINNACLE studies, which Urotronic funded.

More than 80% of men older than age 70 have an enlarged prostate, based on autopsy analyses.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new catheter designed to treat urinary tract symptoms of an enlarged prostate, also known as benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).

Designed and marketed by Urotronic (Plymouth, Minn.), the Optilume BPH Catheter System employs mechanical dilation to relieve obstruction of the prostate and then delivers paclitaxel to aid in prostate healing. The device is used in an outpatient setting and is less invasive than other procedures.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“There’s nothing else like Optilume BPH that’s currently available, it’s the only treatment option that requires no cutting, burning, steaming, or implants,” said Urotronic President and CEO David Perry in a press release.

Two randomized trials, EVEREST-1 and PINNACLE, both showed that the Optilume BPH system improved urinary flow rate and decreased the amount of urine stored in the bladder following urination. Men who used the OPTILUME device were able to ejaculate normally and reported no sexual difficulties.

“Optilume BPH is the next generation of minimally invasive technology, creating a new drug device space among BPH therapies,” Steven A. Kaplan, MD, professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the press release. Dr. Kaplan led the EVEREST-1 and PINNACLE studies, which Urotronic funded.

More than 80% of men older than age 70 have an enlarged prostate, based on autopsy analyses.

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

TOPLINE:

Although practice patterns vary widely, modified, reduced-dose FOLFIRINOX is as effective as standard, full-dose regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the first-line setting, and it is less likely to cause febrile neutropenia.

METHODOLOGY:

• No randomized controlled trials have directly compared modified FOLFIRINOX to standard FOLFIRINOX; this meta-analysis aims to fill the evidence gap.
• The investigators winnowed hundreds of first-line FOLFIRINOX studies down to 37 – 11 prospective and 26 retrospective analyses – to assess practice patterns and clinical outcomes.
• Dose information was grouped into four categories: planned dose in the standard FOLFIRINOX group; actual administered dose in the standard group; planned dose in the modified group; actual administered dose in the modified group.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 12 types of “planned” dose reductions in FOLFIRINOX: 75%-100% oxaliplatin, 75%-100% irinotecan, 0%-100% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus, and 75%-133% 5-FU continuous injection.
• Doses actually delivered fell further to 54%-96% for oxaliplatin, 61%-88% for irinotecan, 0%-92% for 5-FU bolus, and 63%-98% 5-FU continuous injection.
• Despite the variations in dosing, reduced doses of FOLFIRINOX were associated with a slightly but not significantly higher objective response rate: 33.8% versus 28.2% for standard dosing (P = .1).
• The incidence of febrile neutropenia was significantly lower in the reduced-dose groups: 5.5% with modified FOLFIRINOX versus 11.6% with standard (P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study supports reduced-dose regimens, it also shows that there is “still no consensus” on appropriate dose modification, the authors said. “The best dose modification protocol” remains to be determined and standardized for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kwangrok Jung at Seoul (South Korea) National University, and was published June 29 in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• Only 11 of the 37 studies were prospective.
• The studies often lacked key information, including the reason for dose reductions or detailed dose reduction protocols.
• Studies were also inconsistent in how they reported FOLFIRINOX dose modifications.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the study, and the investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Although practice patterns vary widely, modified, reduced-dose FOLFIRINOX is as effective as standard, full-dose regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the first-line setting, and it is less likely to cause febrile neutropenia.

METHODOLOGY:

• No randomized controlled trials have directly compared modified FOLFIRINOX to standard FOLFIRINOX; this meta-analysis aims to fill the evidence gap.
• The investigators winnowed hundreds of first-line FOLFIRINOX studies down to 37 – 11 prospective and 26 retrospective analyses – to assess practice patterns and clinical outcomes.
• Dose information was grouped into four categories: planned dose in the standard FOLFIRINOX group; actual administered dose in the standard group; planned dose in the modified group; actual administered dose in the modified group.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 12 types of “planned” dose reductions in FOLFIRINOX: 75%-100% oxaliplatin, 75%-100% irinotecan, 0%-100% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus, and 75%-133% 5-FU continuous injection.
• Doses actually delivered fell further to 54%-96% for oxaliplatin, 61%-88% for irinotecan, 0%-92% for 5-FU bolus, and 63%-98% 5-FU continuous injection.
• Despite the variations in dosing, reduced doses of FOLFIRINOX were associated with a slightly but not significantly higher objective response rate: 33.8% versus 28.2% for standard dosing (P = .1).
• The incidence of febrile neutropenia was significantly lower in the reduced-dose groups: 5.5% with modified FOLFIRINOX versus 11.6% with standard (P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study supports reduced-dose regimens, it also shows that there is “still no consensus” on appropriate dose modification, the authors said. “The best dose modification protocol” remains to be determined and standardized for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kwangrok Jung at Seoul (South Korea) National University, and was published June 29 in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• Only 11 of the 37 studies were prospective.
• The studies often lacked key information, including the reason for dose reductions or detailed dose reduction protocols.
• Studies were also inconsistent in how they reported FOLFIRINOX dose modifications.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the study, and the investigators had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Although practice patterns vary widely, modified, reduced-dose FOLFIRINOX is as effective as standard, full-dose regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the first-line setting, and it is less likely to cause febrile neutropenia.

METHODOLOGY:

• No randomized controlled trials have directly compared modified FOLFIRINOX to standard FOLFIRINOX; this meta-analysis aims to fill the evidence gap.
• The investigators winnowed hundreds of first-line FOLFIRINOX studies down to 37 – 11 prospective and 26 retrospective analyses – to assess practice patterns and clinical outcomes.
• Dose information was grouped into four categories: planned dose in the standard FOLFIRINOX group; actual administered dose in the standard group; planned dose in the modified group; actual administered dose in the modified group.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 12 types of “planned” dose reductions in FOLFIRINOX: 75%-100% oxaliplatin, 75%-100% irinotecan, 0%-100% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus, and 75%-133% 5-FU continuous injection.
• Doses actually delivered fell further to 54%-96% for oxaliplatin, 61%-88% for irinotecan, 0%-92% for 5-FU bolus, and 63%-98% 5-FU continuous injection.
• Despite the variations in dosing, reduced doses of FOLFIRINOX were associated with a slightly but not significantly higher objective response rate: 33.8% versus 28.2% for standard dosing (P = .1).
• The incidence of febrile neutropenia was significantly lower in the reduced-dose groups: 5.5% with modified FOLFIRINOX versus 11.6% with standard (P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study supports reduced-dose regimens, it also shows that there is “still no consensus” on appropriate dose modification, the authors said. “The best dose modification protocol” remains to be determined and standardized for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kwangrok Jung at Seoul (South Korea) National University, and was published June 29 in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• Only 11 of the 37 studies were prospective.
• The studies often lacked key information, including the reason for dose reductions or detailed dose reduction protocols.
• Studies were also inconsistent in how they reported FOLFIRINOX dose modifications.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding for the study, and the investigators had no disclosures.

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

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease will now be called metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, or MASLD, according to new nomenclature adopted by a global consensus panel composed mostly of hepatology researchers and clinicians.

The new nomenclature, published in the journal Hepatology, includes the umbrella term steatotic liver disease, or SLD, which will cover MASLD and MetALD, a term describing people with MASLD who consume more than 140 grams of alcohol per week for women and 210 grams per week for men.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis, or MASH, will replace the term nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH.

Mary E. Rinella, MD, of University of Chicago Medicine led the consensus group. The changes were needed, Dr. Rinella and her colleagues argued, because the terms “fatty liver disease” “and nonalcoholic” could be considered to confer stigma, and to better reflect the metabolic dysfunction occurring in the disease. Under the new nomenclature, people with MASLD must have a cardiometabolic risk factor, such as type 2 diabetes. People without metabolic parameters and no known cause will be classed as having cryptogenic SLD.

While the new nomenclature largely conserves existing disease definitions, it allows for alcohol consumption beyond current parameters for nonalcoholic forms of the disease. “There are individuals with risk factors for NAFLD, such as type 2 diabetes, who consume more alcohol than the relatively strict thresholds used to define the nonalcoholic nature of the disease [and] are excluded from trials and consideration for treatments,” the authors wrote.

Moreover, they wrote, “within MetALD there is a continuum where conceptually the condition can be seen to be MASLD or ALD predominant. This may vary over time within a given individual.”

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed, however, that even moderate alcohol use alters the natural history of the disease and that patients with more than minimal alcohol consumption should be analyzed separately in clinical trials.

The new nomenclature reflects a 3-year effort involving some 236 panelists from 56 countries who participated in several rounds of online surveys using a Delphi process. Pediatricians, gastroenterologists, and endocrinologists also participated as well as some patient advocates. Changes were based on a super-majority of opinion (67% or higher), though the consensus on whether the term “fatty” was stigmatizing never reached that threshold. In early rounds of surveys only 44% of respondents considered the word “fatty” to be stigmatizing, while more considered “nonalcoholic” to be problematic.

“Substantial proportions of the respondents deemed terms such as ‘fatty’ stigmatizing, hence its exclusion as part of any new name,” Dr. Rinella and her colleagues wrote. “Although health care professionals may contend that patients have not reported this previously, this likely reflects in part a failure to ask the question in the first place and the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship.” The authors noted that the new terminology may help raise awareness at a time when new therapeutics are in sight and it becomes more important to identify at-risk individuals.

Of concern was whether the new definitions would alter the utility of earlier data from registries and trials. However, the authors determined that some 98% of people registered in a European NAFLD cohort would meet the new criteria for MASLD. “Maintenance of the term, and clinical definition, of steatohepatitis ensures retention and validity of prior data from clinical trials and biomarker discovery studies of patients with NASH to be generalizable to individuals classified as MASLD or MASH under the new nomenclature, without impeding the efficiency of research,” they stated.

The effort was spearheaded by three international liver societies: La Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, as well as the cochairs of the NAFLD Nomenclature Initiative.

Each of the authors disclosed a number of potential conflicts of interest.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease will now be called metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, or MASLD, according to new nomenclature adopted by a global consensus panel composed mostly of hepatology researchers and clinicians.

The new nomenclature, published in the journal Hepatology, includes the umbrella term steatotic liver disease, or SLD, which will cover MASLD and MetALD, a term describing people with MASLD who consume more than 140 grams of alcohol per week for women and 210 grams per week for men.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis, or MASH, will replace the term nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH.

Mary E. Rinella, MD, of University of Chicago Medicine led the consensus group. The changes were needed, Dr. Rinella and her colleagues argued, because the terms “fatty liver disease” “and nonalcoholic” could be considered to confer stigma, and to better reflect the metabolic dysfunction occurring in the disease. Under the new nomenclature, people with MASLD must have a cardiometabolic risk factor, such as type 2 diabetes. People without metabolic parameters and no known cause will be classed as having cryptogenic SLD.

While the new nomenclature largely conserves existing disease definitions, it allows for alcohol consumption beyond current parameters for nonalcoholic forms of the disease. “There are individuals with risk factors for NAFLD, such as type 2 diabetes, who consume more alcohol than the relatively strict thresholds used to define the nonalcoholic nature of the disease [and] are excluded from trials and consideration for treatments,” the authors wrote.

Moreover, they wrote, “within MetALD there is a continuum where conceptually the condition can be seen to be MASLD or ALD predominant. This may vary over time within a given individual.”

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed, however, that even moderate alcohol use alters the natural history of the disease and that patients with more than minimal alcohol consumption should be analyzed separately in clinical trials.

The new nomenclature reflects a 3-year effort involving some 236 panelists from 56 countries who participated in several rounds of online surveys using a Delphi process. Pediatricians, gastroenterologists, and endocrinologists also participated as well as some patient advocates. Changes were based on a super-majority of opinion (67% or higher), though the consensus on whether the term “fatty” was stigmatizing never reached that threshold. In early rounds of surveys only 44% of respondents considered the word “fatty” to be stigmatizing, while more considered “nonalcoholic” to be problematic.

“Substantial proportions of the respondents deemed terms such as ‘fatty’ stigmatizing, hence its exclusion as part of any new name,” Dr. Rinella and her colleagues wrote. “Although health care professionals may contend that patients have not reported this previously, this likely reflects in part a failure to ask the question in the first place and the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship.” The authors noted that the new terminology may help raise awareness at a time when new therapeutics are in sight and it becomes more important to identify at-risk individuals.

Of concern was whether the new definitions would alter the utility of earlier data from registries and trials. However, the authors determined that some 98% of people registered in a European NAFLD cohort would meet the new criteria for MASLD. “Maintenance of the term, and clinical definition, of steatohepatitis ensures retention and validity of prior data from clinical trials and biomarker discovery studies of patients with NASH to be generalizable to individuals classified as MASLD or MASH under the new nomenclature, without impeding the efficiency of research,” they stated.

The effort was spearheaded by three international liver societies: La Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, as well as the cochairs of the NAFLD Nomenclature Initiative.

Each of the authors disclosed a number of potential conflicts of interest.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease will now be called metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, or MASLD, according to new nomenclature adopted by a global consensus panel composed mostly of hepatology researchers and clinicians.

The new nomenclature, published in the journal Hepatology, includes the umbrella term steatotic liver disease, or SLD, which will cover MASLD and MetALD, a term describing people with MASLD who consume more than 140 grams of alcohol per week for women and 210 grams per week for men.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis, or MASH, will replace the term nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH.

Mary E. Rinella, MD, of University of Chicago Medicine led the consensus group. The changes were needed, Dr. Rinella and her colleagues argued, because the terms “fatty liver disease” “and nonalcoholic” could be considered to confer stigma, and to better reflect the metabolic dysfunction occurring in the disease. Under the new nomenclature, people with MASLD must have a cardiometabolic risk factor, such as type 2 diabetes. People without metabolic parameters and no known cause will be classed as having cryptogenic SLD.

While the new nomenclature largely conserves existing disease definitions, it allows for alcohol consumption beyond current parameters for nonalcoholic forms of the disease. “There are individuals with risk factors for NAFLD, such as type 2 diabetes, who consume more alcohol than the relatively strict thresholds used to define the nonalcoholic nature of the disease [and] are excluded from trials and consideration for treatments,” the authors wrote.

Moreover, they wrote, “within MetALD there is a continuum where conceptually the condition can be seen to be MASLD or ALD predominant. This may vary over time within a given individual.”

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed, however, that even moderate alcohol use alters the natural history of the disease and that patients with more than minimal alcohol consumption should be analyzed separately in clinical trials.

The new nomenclature reflects a 3-year effort involving some 236 panelists from 56 countries who participated in several rounds of online surveys using a Delphi process. Pediatricians, gastroenterologists, and endocrinologists also participated as well as some patient advocates. Changes were based on a super-majority of opinion (67% or higher), though the consensus on whether the term “fatty” was stigmatizing never reached that threshold. In early rounds of surveys only 44% of respondents considered the word “fatty” to be stigmatizing, while more considered “nonalcoholic” to be problematic.

“Substantial proportions of the respondents deemed terms such as ‘fatty’ stigmatizing, hence its exclusion as part of any new name,” Dr. Rinella and her colleagues wrote. “Although health care professionals may contend that patients have not reported this previously, this likely reflects in part a failure to ask the question in the first place and the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship.” The authors noted that the new terminology may help raise awareness at a time when new therapeutics are in sight and it becomes more important to identify at-risk individuals.

Of concern was whether the new definitions would alter the utility of earlier data from registries and trials. However, the authors determined that some 98% of people registered in a European NAFLD cohort would meet the new criteria for MASLD. “Maintenance of the term, and clinical definition, of steatohepatitis ensures retention and validity of prior data from clinical trials and biomarker discovery studies of patients with NASH to be generalizable to individuals classified as MASLD or MASH under the new nomenclature, without impeding the efficiency of research,” they stated.

The effort was spearheaded by three international liver societies: La Asociación Latinoamericana para el Estudio del Hígado, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and the European Association for the Study of the Liver, as well as the cochairs of the NAFLD Nomenclature Initiative.

Each of the authors disclosed a number of potential conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

Irradiating a small number of metastatic lesions does not appear to improve progression-free or overall survival in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the phase 2 CHEERS trial, 52 patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 47 patients to the same treatment plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (3 x 8 Gy) to a maximum of three lesions before the second or third cycle of an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
• Patients had locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and were treated at five Belgian hospitals.
• Most patients had more than three lesions.
• Seven patients in the experimental group did not complete radiotherapy because of early progression or intercurrent illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in the radiotherapy group versus 2.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .82).
• Median overall survival was not significantly better with radiotherapy, compared with the control group (14.3 vs. 11 months; HR, 0.82; P = .47), nor was the objective response rate (27% vs. 22%; P = .56).
• However, a post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant association between the number of irradiated lesions and overall survival among patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.31; P = .002).
• The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 18% in both groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study was negative overall, the post hoc analysis coupled with “recent evidence suggests that treating all active disease sites with higher radiation doses ... may be a more promising strategy to optimize systemic disease control,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathieu Spaas, MD, department of radiation oncology, Ghent (Bellgium) University, and published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• There was insufficient power to detect if certain cancers benefited more from add-on radiation because of the small sample size.
• More than half of patients in the control group had already received some form of radiotherapy before study inclusion, which may mean the study underestimated the benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Kom Op Tegen Kanker and Varian Medical Systems.

Investigators disclosed numerous industry ties, including Merck, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Irradiating a small number of metastatic lesions does not appear to improve progression-free or overall survival in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the phase 2 CHEERS trial, 52 patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 47 patients to the same treatment plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (3 x 8 Gy) to a maximum of three lesions before the second or third cycle of an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
• Patients had locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and were treated at five Belgian hospitals.
• Most patients had more than three lesions.
• Seven patients in the experimental group did not complete radiotherapy because of early progression or intercurrent illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in the radiotherapy group versus 2.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .82).
• Median overall survival was not significantly better with radiotherapy, compared with the control group (14.3 vs. 11 months; HR, 0.82; P = .47), nor was the objective response rate (27% vs. 22%; P = .56).
• However, a post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant association between the number of irradiated lesions and overall survival among patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.31; P = .002).
• The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 18% in both groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study was negative overall, the post hoc analysis coupled with “recent evidence suggests that treating all active disease sites with higher radiation doses ... may be a more promising strategy to optimize systemic disease control,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathieu Spaas, MD, department of radiation oncology, Ghent (Bellgium) University, and published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• There was insufficient power to detect if certain cancers benefited more from add-on radiation because of the small sample size.
• More than half of patients in the control group had already received some form of radiotherapy before study inclusion, which may mean the study underestimated the benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Kom Op Tegen Kanker and Varian Medical Systems.

Investigators disclosed numerous industry ties, including Merck, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Irradiating a small number of metastatic lesions does not appear to improve progression-free or overall survival in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy for advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the phase 2 CHEERS trial, 52 patients with advanced solid tumors were randomized to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 47 patients to the same treatment plus stereotactic body radiotherapy (3 x 8 Gy) to a maximum of three lesions before the second or third cycle of an immune checkpoint inhibitor.
• Patients had locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and were treated at five Belgian hospitals.
• Most patients had more than three lesions.
• Seven patients in the experimental group did not complete radiotherapy because of early progression or intercurrent illness.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months in the radiotherapy group versus 2.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .82).
• Median overall survival was not significantly better with radiotherapy, compared with the control group (14.3 vs. 11 months; HR, 0.82; P = .47), nor was the objective response rate (27% vs. 22%; P = .56).
• However, a post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant association between the number of irradiated lesions and overall survival among patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.31; P = .002).
• The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was 18% in both groups.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study was negative overall, the post hoc analysis coupled with “recent evidence suggests that treating all active disease sites with higher radiation doses ... may be a more promising strategy to optimize systemic disease control,” the authors concluded.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathieu Spaas, MD, department of radiation oncology, Ghent (Bellgium) University, and published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

• There was insufficient power to detect if certain cancers benefited more from add-on radiation because of the small sample size.
• More than half of patients in the control group had already received some form of radiotherapy before study inclusion, which may mean the study underestimated the benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Kom Op Tegen Kanker and Varian Medical Systems.

Investigators disclosed numerous industry ties, including Merck, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Diets containing higher amounts of certain food categories appear to be protective against cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death, suggests a new study with a broad international scope. Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.

A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.

Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.

Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.

“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.

“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”

The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
 

Healthy diet score

PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.

The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.

There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:

• Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
• MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
• Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).

The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.

In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:

• Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
• MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).

In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:

• MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
• Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).

In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.

The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:

• Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
• MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
• Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
• Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).

“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”

Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”

Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”

Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
 

Common human biology

The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”

Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”

Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
 

Not automatically superior

“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.

“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”

The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”

Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.

The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets containing higher amounts of certain food categories appear to be protective against cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death, suggests a new study with a broad international scope. Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.

A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.

Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.

Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.

“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.

“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”

The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
 

Healthy diet score

PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.

The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.

There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:

• Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
• MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
• Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).

The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.

In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:

• Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
• MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).

In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:

• MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
• Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).

In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.

The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:

• Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
• MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
• Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
• Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).

“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”

Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”

Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”

Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
 

Common human biology

The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”

Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”

Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
 

Not automatically superior

“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.

“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”

The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”

Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.

The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets containing higher amounts of certain food categories appear to be protective against cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death, suggests a new study with a broad international scope. Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.

A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.

Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.

Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.

“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.

“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”

The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
 

Healthy diet score

PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.

The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.

There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:

• Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
• MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
• Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).

The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.

In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:

• Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
• MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).

In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:

• MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
• Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).

In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.

The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:

• Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
• MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
• Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
• Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).

“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”

Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”

Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”

Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
 

Common human biology

The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”

Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”

Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
 

Not automatically superior

“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.

“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”

The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”

Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.

The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

Changes in movement detected passively by smartwatches can help flag Parkinson’s disease (PD) years before symptom onset, new research shows.

An analysis of wearable motion-tracking data from UK Biobank participants showed a strong correlation between reduced daytime movement over 1 week and a clinical diagnosis of PD up to 7 years later.

“Smartwatch data is easily accessible and low cost. By using this type of data, we would potentially be able to identify individuals in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease within the general population,” lead researcher Cynthia Sandor, PhD, from Cardiff (Wales) University, said in a statement.

“We have shown here that a single week of data captured can predict events up to 7 years in the future. With these results we could develop a valuable screening tool to aid in the early detection of Parkinson’s,” she added.

“This has implications both for research, in improving recruitment into clinical trials, and in clinical practice, in allowing patients to access treatments at an earlier stage, in future when such treatments become available,” said Dr. Sandor.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Novel biomarker for PD

Using machine learning, the researchers analyzed accelerometry data from 103,712 UK Biobank participants who wore a medical-grade smartwatch for a 7-day period during 2013-2016.

At the time of or within 2 years after accelerometry data collection, 273 participants were diagnosed with PD. An additional 196 individuals received a new PD diagnosis more than 2 years after accelerometry data collection (the prodromal group).

The patients with prodromal symptoms of PD and those who were diagnosed with PD showed a significantly reduced daytime acceleration profile up to 7 years before diagnosis, compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control persons, the researchers found.

The reduction in acceleration both before and following diagnosis was unique to patients with PD, “suggesting this measure to be disease specific with potential for use in early identification of individuals likely to be diagnosed with PD,” they wrote.

Accelerometry data proved more accurate than other risk factors (lifestyle, genetics, blood chemistry) or recognized prodromal symptoms of PD in predicting whether an individual would develop PD.

“Our results suggest that accelerometry collected with wearable devices in the general population could be used to identify those at elevated risk for PD on an unprecedented scale and, importantly, individuals who will likely convert within the next few years can be included in studies for neuroprotective treatments,” the researchers conclude in their article.

High-quality research

In a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, José López Barneo, MD, PhD, with the University of Seville (Spain), said this “good quality” study “fits well with current knowledge.”

Dr. Barneo noted that other investigators have also observed that slowness of movement is a characteristic feature of some people who subsequently develop PD.

But these studies involved preselected cohorts of persons at risk of developing PD, or they were carried out in a hospital that required healthcare staff to conduct the movement analysis. In contrast, the current study was conducted in a very large cohort from the general U.K. population.

Also weighing in, José Luis Lanciego, MD, PhD, with the University of Navarra (Spain), said the “main value of this study is that it has demonstrated that accelerometry measurements obtained using wearable devices (such as a smartwatch or other similar devices) are more useful than the assessment of any other potentially prodromal symptom in identifying which people in the [general] population are at increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in the future, as well as being able to estimate how many years it will take to start suffering from this neurodegenerative process.

“In these diseases, early diagnosis is to some extent questionable, as early diagnosis is of little use if neuroprotective treatment is not available,” Dr. Lanciego noted.

“However, it is of great importance for use in clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new potentially neuroprotective treatments whose main objective is to slow down – and, ideally, even halt ― the clinical progression that typically characterizes Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Lanciego added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Welsh government, and Cardiff University. Dr. Sandor, Dr. Barneo, and Dr. Lanciego have no relevant disclosures.

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

Changes in movement detected passively by smartwatches can help flag Parkinson’s disease (PD) years before symptom onset, new research shows.

An analysis of wearable motion-tracking data from UK Biobank participants showed a strong correlation between reduced daytime movement over 1 week and a clinical diagnosis of PD up to 7 years later.

“Smartwatch data is easily accessible and low cost. By using this type of data, we would potentially be able to identify individuals in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease within the general population,” lead researcher Cynthia Sandor, PhD, from Cardiff (Wales) University, said in a statement.

“We have shown here that a single week of data captured can predict events up to 7 years in the future. With these results we could develop a valuable screening tool to aid in the early detection of Parkinson’s,” she added.

“This has implications both for research, in improving recruitment into clinical trials, and in clinical practice, in allowing patients to access treatments at an earlier stage, in future when such treatments become available,” said Dr. Sandor.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Novel biomarker for PD

Using machine learning, the researchers analyzed accelerometry data from 103,712 UK Biobank participants who wore a medical-grade smartwatch for a 7-day period during 2013-2016.

At the time of or within 2 years after accelerometry data collection, 273 participants were diagnosed with PD. An additional 196 individuals received a new PD diagnosis more than 2 years after accelerometry data collection (the prodromal group).

The patients with prodromal symptoms of PD and those who were diagnosed with PD showed a significantly reduced daytime acceleration profile up to 7 years before diagnosis, compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control persons, the researchers found.

The reduction in acceleration both before and following diagnosis was unique to patients with PD, “suggesting this measure to be disease specific with potential for use in early identification of individuals likely to be diagnosed with PD,” they wrote.

Accelerometry data proved more accurate than other risk factors (lifestyle, genetics, blood chemistry) or recognized prodromal symptoms of PD in predicting whether an individual would develop PD.

“Our results suggest that accelerometry collected with wearable devices in the general population could be used to identify those at elevated risk for PD on an unprecedented scale and, importantly, individuals who will likely convert within the next few years can be included in studies for neuroprotective treatments,” the researchers conclude in their article.

High-quality research

In a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, José López Barneo, MD, PhD, with the University of Seville (Spain), said this “good quality” study “fits well with current knowledge.”

Dr. Barneo noted that other investigators have also observed that slowness of movement is a characteristic feature of some people who subsequently develop PD.

But these studies involved preselected cohorts of persons at risk of developing PD, or they were carried out in a hospital that required healthcare staff to conduct the movement analysis. In contrast, the current study was conducted in a very large cohort from the general U.K. population.

Also weighing in, José Luis Lanciego, MD, PhD, with the University of Navarra (Spain), said the “main value of this study is that it has demonstrated that accelerometry measurements obtained using wearable devices (such as a smartwatch or other similar devices) are more useful than the assessment of any other potentially prodromal symptom in identifying which people in the [general] population are at increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in the future, as well as being able to estimate how many years it will take to start suffering from this neurodegenerative process.

“In these diseases, early diagnosis is to some extent questionable, as early diagnosis is of little use if neuroprotective treatment is not available,” Dr. Lanciego noted.

“However, it is of great importance for use in clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new potentially neuroprotective treatments whose main objective is to slow down – and, ideally, even halt ― the clinical progression that typically characterizes Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Lanciego added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Welsh government, and Cardiff University. Dr. Sandor, Dr. Barneo, and Dr. Lanciego have no relevant disclosures.

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

Changes in movement detected passively by smartwatches can help flag Parkinson’s disease (PD) years before symptom onset, new research shows.

An analysis of wearable motion-tracking data from UK Biobank participants showed a strong correlation between reduced daytime movement over 1 week and a clinical diagnosis of PD up to 7 years later.

“Smartwatch data is easily accessible and low cost. By using this type of data, we would potentially be able to identify individuals in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease within the general population,” lead researcher Cynthia Sandor, PhD, from Cardiff (Wales) University, said in a statement.

“We have shown here that a single week of data captured can predict events up to 7 years in the future. With these results we could develop a valuable screening tool to aid in the early detection of Parkinson’s,” she added.

“This has implications both for research, in improving recruitment into clinical trials, and in clinical practice, in allowing patients to access treatments at an earlier stage, in future when such treatments become available,” said Dr. Sandor.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Novel biomarker for PD

Using machine learning, the researchers analyzed accelerometry data from 103,712 UK Biobank participants who wore a medical-grade smartwatch for a 7-day period during 2013-2016.

At the time of or within 2 years after accelerometry data collection, 273 participants were diagnosed with PD. An additional 196 individuals received a new PD diagnosis more than 2 years after accelerometry data collection (the prodromal group).

The patients with prodromal symptoms of PD and those who were diagnosed with PD showed a significantly reduced daytime acceleration profile up to 7 years before diagnosis, compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control persons, the researchers found.

The reduction in acceleration both before and following diagnosis was unique to patients with PD, “suggesting this measure to be disease specific with potential for use in early identification of individuals likely to be diagnosed with PD,” they wrote.

Accelerometry data proved more accurate than other risk factors (lifestyle, genetics, blood chemistry) or recognized prodromal symptoms of PD in predicting whether an individual would develop PD.

“Our results suggest that accelerometry collected with wearable devices in the general population could be used to identify those at elevated risk for PD on an unprecedented scale and, importantly, individuals who will likely convert within the next few years can be included in studies for neuroprotective treatments,” the researchers conclude in their article.

High-quality research

In a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, José López Barneo, MD, PhD, with the University of Seville (Spain), said this “good quality” study “fits well with current knowledge.”

Dr. Barneo noted that other investigators have also observed that slowness of movement is a characteristic feature of some people who subsequently develop PD.

But these studies involved preselected cohorts of persons at risk of developing PD, or they were carried out in a hospital that required healthcare staff to conduct the movement analysis. In contrast, the current study was conducted in a very large cohort from the general U.K. population.

Also weighing in, José Luis Lanciego, MD, PhD, with the University of Navarra (Spain), said the “main value of this study is that it has demonstrated that accelerometry measurements obtained using wearable devices (such as a smartwatch or other similar devices) are more useful than the assessment of any other potentially prodromal symptom in identifying which people in the [general] population are at increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in the future, as well as being able to estimate how many years it will take to start suffering from this neurodegenerative process.

“In these diseases, early diagnosis is to some extent questionable, as early diagnosis is of little use if neuroprotective treatment is not available,” Dr. Lanciego noted.

“However, it is of great importance for use in clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new potentially neuroprotective treatments whose main objective is to slow down – and, ideally, even halt ― the clinical progression that typically characterizes Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Lanciego added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Welsh government, and Cardiff University. Dr. Sandor, Dr. Barneo, and Dr. Lanciego have no relevant disclosures.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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