ReportWire

Tag: recent study

  • The Cystic-Fibrosis Breakthrough That Changed Everything

    The Cystic-Fibrosis Breakthrough That Changed Everything

    This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.

    They call it the Purge.

    You have experienced, in a modest way, something like it in the waning days of a bad cold, when your lungs finally expel their accumulated gunk. The rattle in your chest quiets. Your sinuses clear. You smell again: the animal sweetness of your children’s hair, the metallic breeze stirring a late-summer night. Your body, which oozed and groaned under the yoke of illness, is now a perfectly humming machine. Living is easy—everything is easy. How wonderful it is to breathe, simply breathe.

    Explore the April 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Imagine, though, that you had never been able to simply breathe. Imagine that mucus—thick, copious, dark—had been accumulating since the moment you were born, thwarting air and trapping microbes to fester inside your lungs. That you spent an hour each day physically pounding the mucus out of your airways, but even then, your lung function would spiral only downward, in what amounted to a long, slow asphyxiation. This was what it once meant to be born with cystic fibrosis.

    Then, in the fall of 2019, a new triple combination of drugs began making its way into the hands of people with the genetic disease. Trikafta corrects the misshapen protein that causes cystic fibrosis; this molecular tweak thins mucus in the lungs so it can be coughed up easily. In a matter of hours, patients who took it began to cough—and cough and cough and cough in what they later started calling the Purge. They hacked up at work, at home, in their car, in bed at night. It’s not that they were sick; if anything, it was the opposite: They were becoming well. In the days that followed, their lungs were cleansed of a tarlike mucus, and the small tasks of daily life that had been so difficult became unthinkingly easy. They ran up the stairs. They ran after their kids. They ran 10Ks. They ran marathons.

    Cystic fibrosis once all but guaranteed an early death. When the disease was first identified, in the 1930s, most babies born with CF died in infancy. The next decades were a grind of incremental medical progress: A child born with CF in the ’50s could expect to live until age 5. In the ’70s, age 10. In the early 2000s, age 35. With Trikafta came a quantum leap. Today, those who begin taking the drug in early adolescence, a recent study projected, can expect to survive to age 82.5—an essentially normal life span.

    CF was one of the first diseases to be traced to a specific gene, and Trikafta is one of the first drugs designed for a specific, inherited mutation. It is not a cure, and it doesn’t work for all patients. But a substantial majority of the 40,000 Americans with CF have now lived through a miracle—a thrilling but disorienting miracle. Where they once prepared for death, they now have to prepare for life. “It’s like the opposite of a terminal diagnosis,” Jenny Livingston told me.

    Jenny spent her 20s in and out of the hospital for CF-related lung infections. During her frequent weeks-long stays, she made some of her best friends in the CF ward, only to watch them succumb, one by one, to the disease that she knew would eventually kill her too. More than anything, she hoped to live long enough to see her daughter graduate from high school.

    Today, Jenny is 36. Four years into taking Trikafta, she’s the healthiest she’s been in her adult life. Her daughter is 14, a lanky high-school freshman. They’re both obsessed with Harry Styles, and after Jenny started on Trikafta, they flew together to see him live—twice. They learned to hunt deer with Jenny’s partner, Randy. They often go up into the aspen- and fir-topped mountains that overlook their little town in central Utah. Jenny’s last hospitalization—four years ago, just before she started Trikafta—is now more distant in time than her daughter’s future graduation.

    Having lived one life defined by cystic fibrosis, Jenny wonders: What is she going to do with her second life?

    Jenny was born in 1987, the youngest of her parents’ five children together and the third to have cystic fibrosis. Given the family history, the doctors knew to test her as an infant, wrapping her forearm in plastic until a sheen of sweat appeared on her skin: the classic “sweat test” for cystic fibrosis. The faulty protein in CF cannot control the balance of salt and water in the body, which results in mucus that is unusually thick and sweat that is unusually salty. In medieval Europe, centuries before anyone understood why, a proverb foretold the fate of children with salt on their skin: “Woe to the child who tastes salty from a kiss on the brow, for he is cursed and soon will die.”

    The 1980s, suffice it to say, were not the Middle Ages. By the time Jenny was born, her two older sisters with cystic fibrosis—Shannan, 8, and Teresa, 7—were on a strict schedule of mucus-clearing chest therapy and medications that had kept them alive past toddlerhood. Shannan wasn’t diagnosed until she was 13 months old. “I knew when she was born that there was something wrong,” their mother, Lisa, told me. As a newborn, Shannan projectile vomited and blew out her diapers constantly. When she got older, she was often so insatiably hungry that she would cry when a spoon scraped the bottom of a near-empty food jar. She scarfed down five pancakes at a time. In the baby photos in Lisa’s scrapbook, she is all skinny legs and big, swollen belly—a classic sign of malnutrition.

    Shannan was starving, it turned out. Food was passing through her body undigested because her pancreas had been damaged as a result of thick mucus blocking the ducts that release digestive enzymes. Cystic fibrosis was originally named, in fact, for the fibrous cysts that a 1930s pathologist saw in the pancreases of babies who had died. An early epiphany helped doctors overcome the malfunctioning pancreas, though: The missing enzymes could be replaced with pills. By the time of Shannan’s diagnosis, CF was known as a disease of the lungs, in which sticky mucus made fertile ground for bacteria, and the cycle of infection and scarring, infection and scarring would eventually cause the lungs to fail.

    Lisa relayed the news of Shannan’s diagnosis over the phone to her husband, Tom, who was at work. As she repeated the doctor’s words, their awful meaning sank in. Their daughter would not live long. They would watch her die. In that moment, the two of them broke down on the phone, the physical distance between them collapsed by grief.

    Shannan died when she was 14. “I remember the sound of her oxygen machine more than her voice,” Jenny told me. The rumble and puff of the machine had run in the background of their home, punctuated by chronic coughs from all three girls with CF. But neither Teresa nor Jenny was ever as sick as Shannan was in childhood—due perhaps to chance or to being diagnosed and starting treatments earlier in life. Even when they were newborns, their mother coaxed applesauce sprinkled with enzymes into their mouth, so they could absorb nutrients from their milk.

    Not long after Shannan died, Lisa and Tom divorced—their marriage had been strained even before the loss of their daughter—and they both eventually remarried. Despite the upheavals in her family, Jenny remembers her childhood as quite normal. Yes, she had to take the enzymes with every meal, and she had to clear her lungs of mucus every day—first by having her parents pound on her chest and back and later by using an oscillating vest that shook her body. As inhaled CF drugs were developed, they were added to her daily regimen. She went to the hospital for annual preventive “tune-ups,” but she was never sick enough to need emergency hospitalizations, and CF did not seem to hold her back.

    Lisa thinks of Jenny as her sassy daughter. Her youngest was always stubborn, always a go-getter. Through the Make-A-Wish Foundation, she was able to get a horse, which she entered in local shows and rode through the foothills just outside town. In the summer, the salt from the dried sweat on her arms became crystals that glimmered in the sun, a subtle reminder of the disease still inside her. The invincibility of youth, however, made her think she had perhaps escaped her oldest sister’s fate.

    At 19, Jenny married a local boy she had fallen in love with, and at 21, she was shocked to find herself pregnant: “A very, very happy surprise.” She had always longed to be a mother. As a young girl, she once drew a picture proclaiming that she would grow up to have six children. The drawing “broke my heart,” says her stepmother, Candy. Even if Jenny lived long enough, cystic fibrosis often causes fertility issues—in many women, thickened cervical mucus is thought to prevent pregnancy, and in almost all men, sperm ducts never develop because of blockages that occur in utero. And at the time, doctors often recommended against pregnancy for health reasons.

    But Jenny pushed the worries out of her mind. She was simply happy. She set up a crib and painted the nursery. In retrospect, the fevers and shortness of breath she began to feel were not just the normal discomforts of pregnancy, but she didn’t clock it then. She had an uneventful labor, and gave birth to a healthy baby girl. They named her Morgan.

    The trouble started in the following months. Six weeks after giving birth, Jenny went back to work. Between nursing and soothing and diapering a newborn, she could no longer keep up her treatment routine. She sometimes also skipped medications when she couldn’t afford them with the pay from her job as a bank teller and her husband’s as a welder.

    Then she caught a bug. It was 2009, the year of swine flu, so it could have been that or a more mundane cold, but either way, it triggered something deep in her lungs. She started feeling short of breath. By the time she got to a CF specialist at a hospital two hours away, in Salt Lake City, she could not walk from the car to the front door. She was too weak to stand for her lung-function test. She collapsed into her hospital bed, and for the next several days, she was unable to use the toilet or shower on her own. Convinced that she would die 100 miles from her three-month-old daughter, she had a terrible revelation: “This is why they said ‘Don’t have kids.’ ”

    This was Jenny’s first CF pulmonary exacerbation, when lung function plummets from an acute infection. Doctors inserted her first PICC line, a catheter that runs from the upper arm to the heart, delivers antibiotics, and stays in place longer than an IV. She recovered, but just months later, she was back in the hospital with another exacerbation. Then another and another, and on this went for the next several years. Jenny counted for me the PICC-line scars still visible as white dots on each arm—at least 10 on the left, 16 on the right. When the veins in her arms started to reject PICC lines, doctors placed a port under her right collarbone for easy access to her central vein.

    2 photos: patients in scrubs with cucumber slices on eyes and face masks lie upside down on hospital bed; woman in hospital bed with blonde toddler in pink onesie
    Left: As a child, during one of her preventive “tune-ups,” Jenny (center) passed the time in the hospital doing avocado face masks with her sister Teresa and Kara Hansen, another CF patient. Right: Jenny’s daughter, Morgan, visiting her at the hospital in 2011. (Courtesy of Jenny Livingston)

    Each infection scarred her lungs; each exacerbation eroded her lung function. The disease that had been a minor plot point in her life became one of its major storylines, and the people in the hospital became recurring characters. At the University of Utah’s CF center, she met Warren, one of her best friends, whom she came to know so well, she could identify his cough through the hospital walls. He was “so dang funny,” Jenny said, unafraid of joking about the death that would befall them both. Where she was a rule follower, he was a troublemaker. Once, he commandeered a hospital floor scrubber, waving at patients in their rooms as he drove past. Another time, he managed to procure a bootleg copy of The Avengers. Stuck in the hospital over the film’s opening weekend, he and the other CF patients organized a movie night. James brought his Xbox to play the bootleg DVD. Heather (“the biggest Swiftie”) and Angie (“gorgeous, tall blonde”) joined too. They found a waiting room with a TV, and the nurses passed around microwave popcorn.

    Jenny and her friends made sure to sit several feet apart. People with cystic fibrosis have had to practice social distancing since long before COVID, because they are considered a danger to one another. Their lungs harbor destructive and often antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can become impossible to uproot once established. Certain names are spoken with an air of doom: Burkholderia cepacia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. When doctors in the 1990s realized that people with CF were infecting and killing one another by simply gathering, they stopped allowing patients to go within several feet of one another unmasked. Camps for children with cystic fibrosis, which Jenny still remembers fondly, were all shut down. In the hospital, she once again found a community in the disease that was taking over her life. But many of those friendships ended too soon: Of the five people at the Avengers movie night, Jenny is the only one alive today. Warren, James, Heather, and Angie have all died.

    As Jenny struggled with her health, the new reality of chronic illness took a toll on her marriage. She and her husband eventually divorced. After a particularly harrowing hospitalization in 2012, her doctors encouraged her to stop working and go on disability. Something in her life had to give, they told her, or it would be her body. Her disease and her daughter became her whole world.

    Even as a young child, Morgan could sense when her mom was heading toward another exacerbation. If she noticed that Jenny was more tired than usual or coughing more than usual, she began to dread their coming separation. When she was 3 years old, she asked, “Do all mommies live in the hospital sometimes?” When she was 6, after Warren’s death, she asked, “Can you die from CF?” She understood that their existence together was fragile.

    Jenny answered truthfully: Yes. But she assured her daughter that she was taking care of herself as best she could. Still, she made plans for what was probably inevitable. If she died, her daughter would live with her aunt and uncle. If she died, she wanted a funeral just like Warren’s, with music, candy, and an open mic for everyone to share their favorite memories.

    A cure for cystic fibrosis had supposedly been imminent since 1989, when Jenny turned 2. That year, scientists identified the recessive gene behind cystic fibrosis, which encodes a protein called CFTR that controls the flow of salt and water. The discovery seemed so explosive that a Reuters reporter rushed to publish the scoop more than two weeks before the scientific papers were due to come out; two press conferences followed.

    In the decades after, however, researchers came to understand the wide gulf between identifying a genetic problem and knowing how to solve it. Early attempts in the ’90s at using gene therapy to fix mutations failed again and again, both for CF and for other genetic conditions that once seemed tantalizingly close to a cure.

    Then, CF researchers changed tack: Instead of correcting the gene, why not correct the mutated protein itself with small fixer molecules? This had never been done before—with any disease—but the nonprofit Cystic Fibrosis Foundation deemed the strategy promising enough to strike an unusual venture-philanthropy agreement with a company that would attempt it, which was eventually bought by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The foundation funded the research in return for a share of the revenue.

    The move paid off. In 2012, Vertex released a drug called Kalydeco that worked stunningly well—improving lung function and erasing many symptoms in the small group of CF patients who could take it. That was the catch: The FDA approved Kalydeco only for the roughly 4 percent of people with CF who carried a rare and specific mutation. Still, it provided a jolt of optimism. Kalydeco was the first drug ever tailored to a person’s inherited genetic mutation, and the breakthrough portended a new age of “personalized medicine.” It also inspired other patient-advocacy groups to copy the venture-philanthropy model. In 2014, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation sold the rights to royalties from Kalydeco and future Vertex CF drugs for $3.3 billion, which it could invest in new research.

    After Kalydeco, the next CF mutation to target was obvious. About 1,700 unique mutations have been found in people with CF, but some 90 percent of patients—including Jenny—carry at least one copy of a mutation, known as F508del, that leaves their protein channels too seriously distorted for Kalydeco alone to correct. Fixing this shape would be a much bigger task. In 2013, Jenny joined the clinical trial for a two-drug combination from Vertex, made up of Kalydeco plus a second fixer molecule. It failed to especially improve her symptoms, though it did work enough to stabilize her falling lung function. “It seemed to push pause,” she said. She stopped getting sicker, but she was still sick. The research went on.

    A few years later, word began spreading of a forthcoming three-drug combination from Vertex. In clinical trials, neither patients nor doctors are told who is on the placebo and who is on the experimental drug. But in this trial, everyone could tell. The triple combo made patients’ lung function jump by a shocking 10 percentage points. Overnight, they woke up smelling for the first time the distinctive scent of their home. They could even taste their sweat becoming less salty. This was Trikafta.

    In the fall of 2019, Trikafta was approved by the FDA just 10 days before a large annual gathering of CF experts in Nashville. Doctors who attended told me the atmosphere was electric. Jenny happened to be there to speak on an unrelated panel, and she remembers seeing the geneticist Francis Collins walk onstage with a guitar. Collins is best known as the longtime director of the National Institutes of Health, where he oversaw the sequencing of the human genome in the ’90s (he has since retired from the NIH). But he had made his name in 1989 as one of the scientists who discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis.

    In those long years when progress was halting, Collins, who is also an amateur musician, wrote a song to inspire a gathering of CF researchers. He sang “Dare to Dream” again that day in Nashville, his baritone raspier with age. When he got to the verse that he had rewritten for this occasion—“That triple treatment has taken 30 years”—cheers broke out in the convention center. In the crowd were people who had waited their whole career, even their whole life, for this moment. We dare to dream, dare to dream. As they swayed to the music, perhaps no one quite understood the magnitude and velocity of the change to come.

    Jenny received her first box of Trikafta on November 17, 2019, at the end of yet another two-week hospital stay. She had gotten sick again in Nashville. Actually, she had been fighting off a cold before she left, and despite assiduously staying in her hotel room to keep up her treatment routine, she felt an infection settling into her lungs. At the conference, she heard a lot about Trikafta, but she didn’t expect to get it so quickly. CF centers were being inundated with calls from patients asking for the new drug.

    In the hospital in Utah, she recorded a video that she sent to her sister with CF, Teresa, who now lived in Ohio. She is sitting on her hospital bed. “My Trikafta is here,” she says, her voice shaking and her eyes tearing up. The miracle drug she had been promised her whole life was now in her hands.

    Teresa was also able to start the drug not long after. For her, Trikafta’s impact was immediate and unmistakable. The Purge started on the drive back from the doctor’s visit where she took the first dose. The mucus coming up was so thin that she was confused; it was nothing like the sticky gunk she’d had to work so hard to cough up. A month later, she went back for a sweat test, and her salt level was normal. Based on the results, you would not know she had cystic fibrosis.

    photo: red-haired woman sits cross-legged on armchair in living room inhaling from medical apparatus with long gray tubes
    Though Trikafta has dramatically improved Jenny’s CF symptoms, she still uses a vest and inhaled treatments to prevent lung infections and other complications from the disease. (Fumi Nagasaka for The Atlantic)

    “I think of it like, ‘Oh, back when I used to have CF,’ ” Teresa said on a recent call with Jenny and me. “I don’t feel like I have CF. I feel completely normal.” She has been able to stop using her vest and inhaled medications, freeing up that time for her adopted children and the farm where she lives with her family. Before Trikafta, every small exertion was a negotiation with her lungs. Should she go upstairs? How many breaths would that take? Now she’s running around milking the goats, trimming their hooves, throwing 30 bales of hay into the barn.

    On that same call, the sisters got to talking about an upcoming trip to see their grandmother, and Teresa asked Jenny a question that would have been inconceivable before Trikafta: Could they stay in the same hotel room? To avoid infecting each other with the bacteria in their lungs, the two had not shared a room since Teresa left Utah 15 years earlier. At family gatherings, they kept their distance. They didn’t even touch the same serving utensils, sending their partners to get their food. Now, Jenny told her sister, “I would totally stay in the same hotel room.”

    When Jenny started Trikafta, it took her longer than it took Teresa to notice much change. She didn’t have the dramatic capital-P Purge because, she thinks, the hospitalization had already temporarily cleared her lungs. But two months after she started the drug, when a snowstorm blanketed their town, her family drove out to their favorite sledding hill. Jenny had never liked sledding; she would stand in the cold while everyone else ran around having fun, their easy breaths turning into white puffs in the air. This time, her nephew called out and she jogged over.

    It wasn’t until she got to him that she realized she had jogged up—all the way to the top of the hill. “I don’t run, and I don’t climb hills. And I just ran up a hill and felt super fine,” she says in a video she took right after. “I’m going to see if I can do it again. Ready?”

    “Yes,” her daughter, Morgan, answers next to her. They take off. “Mom!” Morgan shouts a few seconds later, as the distance between them grows larger. “You’re beating me, Mom!” At the top of the hill, Jenny looks back to see Morgan still catching up.

    Jenny went down the hill and ran back up again, simply to prove that she could. “At one point, I just plopped up here on my bum and cried,” she told me during my visit in October, pointing to the spot on the hill where it had all hit her. In front of us, big gray mountains jutted into the blue sky. The sledding hill, she admitted, did not look that impressive. But for all of Morgan’s life, Jenny had been on the sidelines. She’d watch as Morgan swam in the lake or rode her bike, her low-grade fever making her too tired to join. That day on the hill, they finally ran together.

    From there, Jenny began noticing changes in her body, big and small. The tips of her fingers, which had always been slightly swollen and round—a sign of low oxygen—thinned out as her lungs improved. She didn’t need as many enzyme pills to digest her meals. Her chronic cough disappeared. She hadn’t realized how much she had always suppressed her laughter to avoid triggering her cough. Now she can laugh—big belly laughs that match the warmth of her personality. “Oh my gosh, my laugh drives her crazy,” she told me in the car, laughing, after picking up Morgan from school. “That’s because you laugh at stuff that’s not funny,” her daughter shot back. Jenny laughed again.

    Trikafta had effects that even doctors did not anticipate. In the months after the drugs became widely available, some patients unexpectedly got pregnant; the drug that thins lung mucus, it turns out, also thins cervical mucus. Then, patients started trying to get pregnant. The drug made many people with CF feel so healthy that they no longer worried about the physical toll of pregnancy and parenthood or the agony of leaving behind young children. Doctors began speaking of a Trikafta baby boom.

    Doors opened to other once-impossible futures. A 22-year-old told me he decided to train as an aircraft mechanic, a job that would have been far too physically demanding when he was being hospitalized multiple times a year. One woman started dating. “I don’t want to fall in love with somebody, knowing that I’m not going to be around very long,” she had thought. Now she and her boyfriend have been together for four years. A father who was being evaluated for a lung transplant before Trikafta felt healthy enough to spend the summer of 2020 tearing down and rebuilding his family’s deck, and now expects his CF lungs to see him through graduations and grandkids.

    Trikafta is a lifelong medication, and it is not meant to undo organ damage that has already occurred. But the earlier treatment begins, the healthier one stays. A handful of pregnant women have now used Trikafta to treat their unborn children with cystic fibrosis. Last fall, I corresponded with one such expecting mother, who does not have CF but whose son was diagnosed by genetic testing. She started Trikafta at 26 weeks. When her son was born in October, his lungs and pancreas were perfectly healthy.

    Officially, Trikafta is approved in the U.S. for patients as young as 2. Unofficially, some parents give their newborns Trikafta, either indirectly through breast milk or directly by grinding up the pills into tiny doses. So long as they stay on the medication, these children may never experience any of the physical ravages of the disease. Recently, Make-A-Wish announced that children with CF would no longer automatically be eligible for the program, because “life-changing advances” had radically improved the outlook for them.

    CF centers these days are unusually quiet. Fewer patients need once-routine weeks-long hospitalizations. Instead of thinking about lung function, more and more are worrying about the maladies that come with middle and old age—colon cancer, high cholesterol, heart disease. Obesity has been a confounding new issue. Before Trikafta, patients were usually underweight, and they were told to cram as many calories in as possible, by whatever means possible. Every additional pound was a small victory. One patient described microwaving pints of Ben & Jerry’s to drink mixed with heavy cream; when even that failed to make her gain weight, she got a feeding tube. Now people on Trikafta worry about getting too many calories.

    In February, Vertex announced the results of a clinical trial for a next-generation triple-combination therapy, which may be even more effective than Trikafta. All of these changes have made for an existential moment for doctors, too: The disease they were trained to treat is no longer the disease most of their patients have.

    Doctors told me they could think of only one other comparable breakthrough in recent memory: the arrival of powerful HIV drugs in the 1990s. Like Trikafta, those drugs were not a cure, but they transformed AIDS from a terminal illness into a manageable chronic one. Young men got up from their deathbed, newly strong and hale. AIDS hospices emptied—and then went bankrupt.

    This was a remarkable turn of events. But it elicited a complicated mix of emotions, not all of them joyful. Some patients who were no longer dying grew depressed, anxious, and even suicidal at the thought of living. This phenomenon became known as “Lazarus syndrome.”

    Death is an end, after all. Life comes with problems: Patients who spent lavishly during what were supposed to be their last days now had no money to live on. Those who stayed with a lover in sickness found that they could not actually stand them in health. They fretted about insurance and paperwork and chores, everyday annoyances that would no longer be obliterated by imminent death. In 1996, the writer Andrew Sullivan, who is HIV-positive, described life after the advent of the HIV drugs in his essay “When Plagues End”:

    When you have spent several years girding yourself for the possibility of death, it is not so easy to gird yourself instead for the possibility of life. What you expect to greet with the euphoria of victory comes instead like the slow withdrawal of an excuse. And you resist it.

    The intensity with which you had learned to approach each day turns into a banality, a banality that refuses to understand or even appreciate the experience you have just gone through.

    For some HIV patients, their reversal of fortune seemed unreal. “He doesn’t trust what’s happening to him,” one doctor said about a patient who had made a dramatic recovery, yet found himself in psychological distress.

    Doubts like these crept into the minds of many people on Trikafta, too. What if the new drug stopped working? Or had horrible side effects? Or stopped being covered by insurance? Trikafta’s sticker price is more than $300,000 a year. Insurance typically covers most of that cost—minus what can be significant co-pays and deductibles—and Vertex offers co-pay assistance. But patients’ lives ultimately depend on decisions made by nameless bureaucrats in rooms far away: Insurance plans can suddenly change what they cover, and in 2022, Vertex announced that it would substantially reduce its financial assistance.

    A 43-year-old woman I interviewed asked not to be named, because she feared that speaking about her improved health would cause her to lose disability benefits, which would also get her kicked off the government insurance that pays for Trikafta. Her health has not improved as dramatically as others’ has, and she still has frequent infections and occasional bleeding in her lungs. If she returns to work but her health declines, it could take a long time to get back on disability—time she would have to go without Trikafta. She would also need a job with health insurance good enough to cover the expensive drug—but could she even get one as a 40-something with no recent employment history?

    For other patients, new health granted new independence, which could be scary too. As a child, Patrick Allen Brown was sick enough to miss long stretches of school. His parents didn’t expect him to do chores, let alone support himself with a job one day. So much of his life was spent in the hospital that movies became his way of understanding the outside world. In his teens and 20s, he drank heavily.

    After Trikafta restored Brown’s physical health, he was no longer a chronically ill adult who lived with his parents. He was a pretty healthy adult who still lived with his parents. He was 32, and hadn’t finished college. Now he had to budget, commit to a career. He decided to get sober. When one of his parents needed back surgery recently, their roles flipped: He became the caretaker. Brown has now graduated from culinary school and found work as a chef, but he feels as if he is still catching up to his peers.

    2 photos: sunlit hill with trees, fence, and partially cloudy blue sky; red-haired woman hugs blonde girl looking at camera with sky and mountains in background
    Two months after Jenny began taking Trikafta, she found that she was able to run up a local sledding hill for the first time. Jenny and Morgan often go up into the aspen- and fir-topped mountains that overlook their town in central Utah. (Fumi Nagasaka for The Atlantic)

    The great blossoming of possibilities on Trikafta also dredged up regret about decisions too late to undo. Kara Hansen, 41, has a daughter who was adopted, and she had always wanted another child. But in 2016, she had to be repeatedly hospitalized: in April, then again in May, July, and August. She gave up on having a second child—how could she, if she couldn’t even guarantee living for the daughter she already had? Then, in 2018, she joined the original trial for Trikafta, becoming one of the first people in the world to experience its miraculous effects. If she had known her health would improve so dramatically and hold steady six years on, she would have tried to get pregnant, but she feels like it’s too late now. To plan for such a miracle would have been foolish, but to live in its unexpected aftermath can still be painful.

    After a year on Trikafta, Jenny told Teresa something that she acknowledged sounded “insane” but that her sister understood immediately: “To no longer be actively dying kind of sucks,” she said. The certainty of dying young, she realized, had been a security blanket. She’d never worried about retirement, menopause, or the loneliness of outliving a parent or a partner.

    Cystic fibrosis had defined her adult life. Now what? For so long, she’d just been trying to see her daughter graduate from high school. Now she faced seeing Morgan go off and live her own life. What then? Jenny had become active in patient advocacy, and soon after the start of the pandemic, she volunteered to moderate an online patient forum on mental health for her CF center in Utah. It went so well that her longtime social worker at the center felt compelled to give some career advice: Try social work.

    Jenny enrolled in an online master’s program in 2022, and this past fall she chose a practicum with a hospice agency. Having watched the death of so many friends and contemplated her own, she felt prepared to shepherd people through the sadness and awkwardness and even humor that accompany the end of life. She understood, too, the small dignities that mean the world when your body is no longer up to the task of living. One hospice patient, she noticed, often had trouble understanding conversations because his hearing aids were never charged correctly. She got the situation fixed, and on a recent visit, he wanted to listen to music, playing for her the favorite songs of his youth. On another man’s shelf, she recognized a birding book, and she made plans for a window feeder to bring birds to him.

    Jenny doesn’t share the details of her life with patients, but in their experiences with death, she has seen her own refracted. One hospice patient, a devout elderly woman, was estranged from her adult son, who no longer believed. Jenny herself grew up religious—Mormon, in her case—but she is not anymore. Her family is still Mormon, as is virtually everyone in the town she has lived in since childhood, which has 3,500 people, several Mormon churches, and a Mormon temple. She is liberal, whereas most of her relatives voted for Donald Trump.

    Still, Jenny has made a point of staying close to her large, tight-knit family. Knowing she would die young had long ago clarified that she wanted to leave with no regrets, no grudges, and no words left unsaid to the people she loved. In the foothills outside town one day, she pointed in the direction of her house, her brother’s house, her mom’s house, her dad and stepmom’s house, all minutes away from one another.

    Although Trikafta looks to be a very safe drug for most people, it does have side effects. It can cause cataracts as well as liver injury. More perplexing, Trikafta may affect the brain.

    For Jenny, starting Trikafta coincided with a wave of intense insomnia, brain fog, and anxiety. For months, she could sleep only two or three hours a night. She’d lose her phone and find it in the freezer. Her lungs were so much healthier, but her brain was going haywire. Soon, she realized that other CF patients had begun sharing stories online of depression, anger, or suicidal thoughts that emerged at the same time they started taking Trikafta.

    Doctors sometimes chalked up these symptoms to the existential unease of no longer dying, or the fear and isolation everyone felt in the early days of the pandemic. But Jenny’s doctor took the side effects she reported seriously enough to suggest that she halve her Trikafta dose, and soon after, they subsided. (Some of her CF symptoms did return, but they were muted enough that she could pare down her regimen of treatments.)

    The link between Trikafta and these symptoms in the brain is still not fully proven or understood. “We’ve done an in-depth analysis of the preclinical data, clinical data, and real-world-evidence data, and we don’t find any causal relationship,” Fred Van Goor, a vice president and the head of CF research at Vertex, told me in January. And an analysis co-authored by the company’s scientists last year found similar rates of depression and suicidality in CF patients with or without Trikafta. But in November, a group of scientists published a review arguing that the possible neuropsychiatric effects of Trikafta deserved a “serious research effort.” The protein behind CF is found in cells throughout the body, including the brain. Trikafta could be acting on the brain directly, the authors hypothesized, or it could be acting indirectly via changes to inflammation throughout the body or specifically in the gut. The drug may affect different subsets of patients differently, says Anna Georgiopoulos, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital who co-authored the review. She believes that neuropsychiatric side effects afflict only a “small minority” of people on Trikafta, but says that studies are needed to know exactly how many.

    In the meantime, some patients have quit Trikafta altogether, their neuropsychiatric symptoms too debilitating even on a lower dose. “Physically I was feeling the best I’ve ever felt,” says Aimee Lecointre of her time on the drug, but mentally, “I felt on the verge of a panic attack almost every day.” The contradiction confused her: How could she be so anxious and depressed when her health was getting so much better? When she finally decided to try stopping Trikafta, the nervous energy that had filled her body all day long dissipated. But her CF symptoms came back. During our phone conversation, she paused every few minutes to cough.

    She and Jenny have known each other for years, going back to their mutual hospitalizations. The three of us were supposed to meet over apple-cider floats when I was in Utah, but Lecointre had health issues come up at the last minute, the kind of disruption that happens all the time for people with a chronic illness. For a while, her Instagram feed filled with people on Trikafta whose lives were transforming while hers stayed the same; she had to delete social media from her phone. She still feels sad, sometimes, that Trikafta didn’t work out for her. But she was able to go back to one of Vertex’s two-drug combos, and although it is less effective than Trikafta, she feels so much better. There is more to cope with, but the coping is easier.

    For another group of CF patients, Trikafta simply does not work. About 10 percent lack the F508del mutation that the triple combination was specifically designed to fix. Over time, though, scientists have found that some less common mutations are similar enough to F508del that those who carry them still benefit from Trikafta. And in late 2020, word got out that the FDA would soon approve the drug for additional mutations.

    Gina Ruiz remembers waiting and waiting for the list of new mutations that fall. She had spent the past year watching her peers on Trikafta be handed what she thought of as a “reverse Uno card”—reverse weight loss, reverse lung decline, reverse CF—while her own health continued to worsen. She was sitting in a car when she saw the list, and she scrolled through the 177 new mutations hoping to find hers. She was crushed when she did not. Ruiz and most people in the 10 percent have mutations that leave their CFTR protein too garbled or incomplete to correct with any combination of fixer molecules. Treating these mutations will require a different strategy altogether.

    The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation continues to fund research into a cure for all, and scientists, including those at Vertex, are once again exploring genetic therapies, applying the lessons of past failures. But a genetic-therapy breakthrough specific to CF is still years, if not decades, away. After Vertex created that first drug for the 4 percent, the path toward Trikafta was clear. After Trikafta, terra incognita.

    Ruiz is wary of getting her hopes up again. At age 29, she can no longer work. She lives with her parents. Her lung function has fallen to 30 percent. And in December, her weight reached a new low of 89 pounds. “I went to Target last night and I was beyond exhausted,” she told me the following month. Her knees hurt too, another complication of CF. As she’s watched her peers on Trikafta get married and chase after toddlers, her own world has shrunk. Halfway through the store, she got so tired that she had to rest in a chair in the home-goods section before she could go on.

    Other patients with rare mutations told me the CF communities they once relied on for support have become quiet, as the 90 percent have gotten on with their lives. “It’s extremely isolating,” says Steph Hansen, who was steeling herself for another hospitalization when we spoke in January. She describes it as a one-two punch: Her health is no better, yet she has lost the community that once buoyed her. She’s connected with a handful of other patients who can’t take Trikafta, but CF is already a rare disease, and they are the rarest of the rare.

    photo of group of 12 people standing in line, some hugging, on grassy field with mountains and sky in distance
    Jenny has made a point of staying close to her large, tight-knit family; knowing she would die young clarified that she wanted to leave without any grudges. (Fumi Nagasaka for The Atlantic)

    The F508del mutation is most common in people of European ancestry, so people with mutations ineligible for Trikafta in the U.S. are disproportionately Black or Latino. Globally, the proportion of people ineligible is higher in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, where diagnosis and treatment for CF also lag. In most developing countries, even eligible patients cannot get Trikafta—because Vertex currently does not sell its expensive drug outside a few dozen countries, concentrated in Europe and the English-speaking world. (Vertex says it has a pilot program that “provides Trikafta at no cost to people with CF in certain lower income countries.”) Its patents also block other companies from making a cheaper generic version. In early 2023, activists asked four countries to revoke or suspend patents for Trikafta in a coordinated campaign. One of the countries was India, where The New York Times wrote about a father named Seshagiri Buddana. His son would have been able to take Trikafta if he lived in the U.S., but he died in December 2022 one day before he would have turned 9.

    All of this weighs on Jenny. What makes her different from those who have died, other than the luck of being born at the right time, in the right place, with the right mutations?

    Two days after my visit to Utah, Jenny’s father, Tom, had a heart attack while chopping firewood. He felt short of breath, and a trip to the hospital revealed that his major arteries were 90 percent blocked.

    When Jenny texted me the news, she said she had been replaying our recent conversations about life and death. She was glad to feel, upon learning her father might die, that nothing between the two of them was left unsaid or unresolved. I thought of what Tom had told me in his living room. Before we had gone over to his house that day, Jenny had warned me that her dad was a jokester, not a man prone to earnest reflection. But when the conversation shifted to the impact of Trikafta, he turned to me, completely serious. “I was going to bury my kids. And I’m not. They get to bury me, which is the way it’s supposed to be.”

    We all fell silent for a moment, as we felt the weight he had been carrying all those years. After burying his eldest daughter at 14, Tom could no longer watch movies in which children die. In Jenny’s years of sickness, he had often driven her two hours to the hospital in Salt Lake City, but he rarely set foot inside. Hospitals are places where people go to be born or to die, he’d say, and all my children have already been born.

    After his heart attack, Tom needed an emergency quintuple-bypass surgery. He did well, and came home to recover. He spent the time rethinking his priorities. Just before falling ill, he had skipped a family outing to an amusement park to work. Now he regretted it. He’s become more open about his emotions; still a jokester, he’s taken to saying that his heart has been opened in more ways than one since the surgery.

    It’s interesting, Jenny says. Her father has lived a longer and very different life from her own, but she recognizes what he is going through. People die from this, he started saying. I could have died from this. He got close enough to see death’s shadow, only to be pulled back to a life whose familiarity suddenly felt unfamiliar. What would he do with his unexpected life? “Hey,” Jenny told her dad. “I get it.”


    This article appears in the April 2024 print edition with the headline “After the Miracle.”

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • The Real Reason You Should Get an E-bike

    The Real Reason You Should Get an E-bike

    Today’s happiness and personal-finance gurus have no shortage of advice for living a good life. Meditate daily. Sleep for eight hours a night. Don’t forget to save for retirement. They’re not wrong, but few of these experts will tell you one of the best ways to improve your life: Ditch your car.

    A year ago, my wife and I sold one of our cars and replaced it with an e-bike. As someone who writes about climate change, I knew that I was doing something good for the planet. I knew that passenger vehicles are responsible for much of our greenhouse-gas emissions—16 percent in the U.S., to be exact—and that the pollution spewing from gas-powered cars doesn’t just heat up the planet; it could increase the risk of premature death. I also knew that electric cars were an imperfect fix: Though they’re responsible for less carbon pollution than gas cars, even when powered by today’s dirty electric grid, their supply chain is carbon intensive, and many of the materials needed to produce their batteries are, in some cases, mined via a process that brutally exploits workers and harms ecosystems and sacred Indigenous lands. An e-bike’s comparatively tiny battery means less electricity, fewer emissions, fewer resources. They are clearly better for the planet than cars of any kind.

    I knew all of this. But I also viewed getting rid of my car as a sacrifice—something for the militant and reckless, something that Greenpeace volunteers did to make the world better. I live in Colorado; e-biking would mean freezing in the winter and sweating in the summer. It was the right thing to do, I thought, but it was not going to be fun.

    I was very wrong. The first thing I noticed was the savings. Between car payments, insurance, maintenance, and gas, a car-centered lifestyle is expensive. According to AAA, after fuel, maintenance, insurance, taxes, and the like, owning and driving a new car in America costs $10,728 a year. My e-bike, by comparison, cost $2,000 off the rack and has near-negligible recurring charges. After factoring in maintenance and a few bucks a month in electricity costs, I estimate that we’ll save about $50,000 over the next five years by ditching our car.

    The actual experience of riding to work each day over the past year has been equally surprising. Before selling our car, I worried most about riding in the cold winter months. But I quickly learned that, as the saying goes, there is no bad weather, only bad gear. I wear gloves, warm socks, a balaclava, and a ski jacket when I ride, and am almost never too cold.

    Sara Hastings-Simon is a professor at the University of Calgary, where she studies low-carbon transportation systems. She’s also a native Californian who now bikes to work in a city where temperatures tend to hover around freezing from December through March. She told me that with the right equipment, she’s able to do it on all but the snowiest days—days when she wouldn’t want to be in a car, either. “Those days are honestly a mess even on the roads,” she said.

    And though I, like many would-be cyclists, was worried about arriving at the office sweaty in hotter months, the e-bike solved my problem. Even when it was 90 degrees outside, I didn’t break a sweat, thanks to my bike’s pedal-assist mode. If I’m honest, sometimes I didn’t even pedal; I just used the throttle, sat back, and enjoyed my ride.

    Indeed, a big part of the appeal here is in the e part of the bike: “E-bikes aren’t just a traditional bike with a motor. They are an entirely new technology,” Hastings-Simon told me. Riding them is a radically different experience from riding a normal bike, at least when it comes to the hard parts of cycling. “It’s so much easier to take a bike over a bridge or in a hilly neighborhood,” Laura Fox, the former general manager of New York City’s bike-share program, told me. “I’ve had countless people come up to me and say, ‘I never thought that I could bike to work before, and now that I have an option where you don’t have to show up sweaty, it’s possible.’” (When New York introduced e-bikes to its fleet, ridership tripled, she told me, from 500,000 to 1.5 million people.)

    But biking to work wasn’t just not unpleasant—it was downright enjoyable. It made me feel happier and healthier; I arrived to work a little more buoyant for having spent the morning in fresh air rather than traffic. Study after study shows that people with longer car commutes are more likely to experience poor health outcomes and lower personal well-being—and that cyclists are the happiest commuters. One day, shortly after selling our car, I hopped on my bike after a stressful day at work and rode home down a street edged with changing fall leaves. I felt more connected to the physical environment around me than I had when I’d traveled the same route surrounded by metal and glass. I breathed in the air, my muscles relaxed, and I grinned like a giddy schoolchild.

    “E-bikes are like a miracle drug,” David Zipper, a transportation expert and Visiting Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, told me. “They provide so much upside, not just for the riders, but for the people who are living around them too.”

    Of course, e-bikes aren’t going to replace every car on every trip. In a country where sprawling suburbs and strip malls, not protected bike lanes, are the norm, it’s unrealistic to expect e-bikes to replace cars in the way that the Model T replaced horses. But we don’t need everyone to ride an e-bike to work to make a big dent in our carbon-pollution problem. A recent study found that if 5 percent of commuters were to switch to e-bikes as their mode of transportation, emissions would fall by 4 percent. As an individual, you don’t even need to sell your car to reduce your carbon footprint significantly. In 2021, half of all trips in the United States were less than three miles, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Making those short trips on an e-bike instead of in a car would likely save people money, cut their emissions, and improve their health and happiness.

    E-bikes are such a no-brainer for individuals, and for the collective, that state and local governments are now subsidizing them. In May, I asked Will Toor, the executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, to explain the state’s rationale for a newly passed incentive that offers residents $450 to get an e-bike. He dutifully ticked through the environmental benefits and potential cost savings for low-income people. Then he surprised me: The legislation, he added, was also about “putting more joy into the world.”

    Michael Thomas

    Source link

  • How a Common Stomach Bug Causes Cancer

    How a Common Stomach Bug Causes Cancer

    At first, doctors didn’t believe that bacteria could live in the stomach at all. Too acidic, they thought. But in 1984, a young Australian physician named Barry Marshall gulped down an infamous concoction of beef broth laced with Helicobacter pylori bacteria. On day eight, he started vomiting. On day 10, an endoscopy revealed that H. pylori had colonized his stomach, their characteristic spiral shape unmistakeable under the microscope.

    Left untreated, H. pylori usually establishes infections that persist for an entire lifetime, and they’re common: Half of the world’s population harbors H. pylori inside their stomach, as do more than one in three Americans. In most cases, the microbe settles into an asymptomatic chronic infection, but in some, it becomes far more troublesome. It can, for example, cause enough damage to the stomach lining to create ulcers. Worse still, H. pylori can lead to cancer. This single bacterium is by far the No. 1 risk factor in stomach cancers worldwide. By one estimate, some 70 percent can be attributed to H. pylori.

    But what still puzzles doctors years later is why H. pylori has such different consequences for different people. Why is it asymptomatic in most but carcinogenic in others? Although the full answer is complex, one key factor seems to be mutations in H. pylori itself. Not every strain is created equal. The presence of select genes intensifies H. pylori’s pathogenicity, and even a single mutation in a single gene, scientists recently found, enhances the link to cancer. A small genetic tweak in a common stomach bug could have profound consequences for us, its unwitting hosts.


    H. pylori has lived inside of us for a long time. Our ancestors who left Africa likely carried it inside them as they crossed continents and oceans, built and felled civilizations. And over the course of what some scientists hypothesize to be more than 100,000 years of co-evolution, H. pylori has exquisitely adapted to the harsh, acidic conditions of the human stomach.

    It survives, for example, by producing “copious amounts” of an enzyme that neutralizes stomach acid, Richard Peek, a gastroenterologist at Vanderbilt, told me. H. pylori can also burrow into the mucus-gel lining of the stomach using powerful, whiplike flagella. The mucus lining offers a relative haven from stomach acid, but another prize lies underneath too: stomach cells, rich in nutrients that the bacteria needs to survive.

    The way that H. pylori steals nutrients could be the key to how it ends up causing cancer. The bacterium isn’t necessarily out to hurt its human host. “H. pylori doesn’t want you to get an ulcer or to get cancer, but it needs to replicate to high enough levels in the stomach that it can be transmitted to another person,” Nina Salama, a biologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, told me. (The bacteria seem to spread through an infected person’s saliva, vomit, or feces.) But to replicate, it needs nutrients, in particular iron, which our cells probably hoard to starve pathogens.

    In response, certain strains of H. pylori have evolved genetic changes that might make its iron-mining more efficient. But this also causes more collateral damage to the host’s stomach, enough damage, perhaps, to eventually trigger cancer. First, the bacteria uses a protein called HtrA—essentially “a pair of molecular scissors,” Peek said—to cut the bonds that hold stomach cells together, so the microbes can slip between. A single mutation in this scissor protein makes it better at cutting, a group based in Germany found in a recent study, and this mutation is disproportionately found in H. pylori strains isolated from people who developed stomach cancer.

    Once H. pylori has wedged itself in between cells, it also has clever ways of accessing the nutrients inside. Certain strains carry a set of about 18 genes that collectively encode a molecular needle through which H. pylori injects bacterial proteins, triggering a cascade of changes to the cell. These hijacked cells end up giving up their iron more easily, but they also become worse at essential functions such as fixing damaged DNA. This set of approximately 18 genes, collectively called the “cag pathogenicity island,” are in fact disproportionately found in strains from cancer patients. Stomach cancer thus might be a secondary consequence of the microbe’s aggressive search for nutrients. For the H. pylori, “there’s no selective pressure to cause cancer in 80 years. The selective pressure is to acquire iron now,” Karen Guillemin, a microbiologist at the University of Oregon, said.

    But not everyone infected with one of these cancer-linked strains will develop cancer. Other factors likely play a role too: diet, environment, and genetics of the individual patient  Stomach-cancer rates vary quite widely around the world, with the highest prevalence in East Asia. In Japan, doctors routinely test for H. pylori in people with no symptoms, and prescribe antibiotics if the tests come back positive. But some scientists have argued against aggressive treatment, pointing at hints that humans derive some benefits from living with H. pylori too. Those infected, for example, tend to have lower rates of asthma and allergy. Genetic signatures associated with more pathogenic H. pylori strains, Peek told me, would help identify those at highest risk, who could most benefit from antibiotics.

    Marshall, the Australian doctor who infected himself with H. pylori, ultimately recovered just fine. His self-experiment, in addition to other studies with his collaborator Robin Warren, proved that the bacterium does indeed infect the stomach and does indeed cause stomach ulcers, which later spurred the work linking H. pylori to cancer. Understanding exactly how and why H. pylori becomes pathogenic is still key to finding the way to treat it, but in the past 40 years the significance of H. pylori to human health has become indisputable—so much so that in 2005, Marshall and Warren won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • It’s the Best Time in History to Have a Migraine

    It’s the Best Time in History to Have a Migraine

    Here is a straightforward, clinical description of a migraine: intense throbbing headache, nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and noise, lasting for hours or days.

    And here is a fuller, more honest picture: an intense, throbbing sense of annoyance as the pain around my eye blooms. Wondering what the trigger was this time. Popping my beloved Excedrin—a combination of acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine—and hoping it has a chance to percolate in my system before I start vomiting. There’s the drawing of the curtains, the curling up in bed, the dash to the toilet to puke my guts out. I am not a religious person, but during my worst migraines, I have whimpered at the universe, my hands jammed into the side of my skull, and begged it for relief.

    That probably sounds melodramatic, but listen: Migraines are miserable. They’re miserable for about 40 million Americans, most of them women, though the precise symptoms and their severity vary across sufferers. For about a quarter, myself included, the onset is sometimes preceded by an aura, a short-lived phase that can include blind spots, tingling, numbness, and language problems. (These can resemble stroke symptoms, and you should seek immediate medical care if you experience them and don’t have a history of migraines.) Many experience a final phase known as the “migraine hangover,” which consists of fatigue, trouble concentrating, and dizziness after the worst pain has passed.

    These days, migraine sufferers are caught in a bit of a paradox. In some ways, their situation looks bright (but, please, not too bright): More treatments are available now than ever before—though still no cure—and researchers are learning more about what triggers a migraine, with occasionally surprising results. “It’s a really exciting time in headache medicine,” Mia Minen, a neurologist and the chief of headache research at NYU Langone, told me.

    And yet the enthusiasm within the medical community doesn’t seem to align with conditions on the ground (which, by the way, is a nice, cool place to press your cheek during an attack). Migraine sufferers cancel plans and feel guilty about it. They struggle to parent. They call in sick, and if they can’t, they move through the work day like zombies. In a 2019 survey, about 30 percent of participants with episodic migraines—attacks that occur on fewer than 15 days a month—said that the disorder had negatively affected their careers. About 58 percent with chronic migraines—attacks that occur more often than that—said the same.

    Migraines are still misunderstood, including by the people who deal with them. “We still don’t have a full understanding of exactly what causes migraine, and why some people suffer more than others do,” Elizabeth Loder, a headache clinician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and a neurology professor at Harvard Medical School, told me. Despite scientific progress, awareness campaigns, and frequent reminders that migraines are a neurological disorder and not “just headaches,” too often, they’re not treated with the medical care they require. Yes, it’s the best time in history to have migraines. It just doesn’t feel that way.


    Humans have had migraines probably for as long as we’ve had brains. As the historian Katherine Foxhall argues in her 2019 book, Migraine: A History, “much evidence suggests migraine had been taken seriously in both medical and lay literature throughout the classical, medieval, and early modern periods as a serious disorder requiring prompt and sustained treatment.” It was only in the 18th century, when medical professionals lumped migraines in with other “nervous disorders” such as hysteria, that they “came to be seen as characteristic of sensitivity, femininity, overwork, and moral and personal failure.” The association persisted, Stephen Silberstein, the director of the headache center at Thomas Jefferson University, told me. When Silberstein began his training in the 1960s, “nobody talked about migraine in medical school,” he told me. Physicians still believed that migraines were “the disorder of neurotic women.”

    The first drug treatments for migraines appeared in the 1920s, and they were discovered somewhat by accident: Doctors found that ergotamine, a drug used to stimulate contractions in childbirth and control postpartum bleeding, also sometimes relieved migraines. (It could also cause pain, muscle weakness, and, in high enough doses, gangrene; some later studies have found that it’s little better than placebo.) The drug constricted blood vessels in the brain, so doctors assumed that migraine was a vascular disorder, the symptoms brought on by changes in blood flow and inflamed vessels. In the 1960s, a physician studying the effectiveness of a heart medication noticed that one of his participants experienced migraine attacks less frequently than he used to; a decade later, the FDA approved that class of drug, called beta-blockers, as a preventative treatment. (In the decades since their approval, studies have found that beta-blockers helped about a quarter of participants reduce their monthly migraine days by half, compared with 4 percent of people taking a placebo.)

    Things changed in the 1990s, when triptans, a new class of drugs made specifically for migraines, became available. Triptans were often more effective and faster at easing migraine pain than earlier drugs, though the effects didn’t last as long. Around the same time, genetic studies revealed that migraines are often hereditary. Meanwhile, new brain-imaging technology allowed researchers to observe migraines in real time. It showed that, although blood vessels could become inflamed during an attack and contribute to pain, migraine isn’t strictly a vascular disorder. The chaos comes from within the nervous system: Scientists’ best understanding is that the trigeminal nerve, which provides sensation in the face, becomes stimulated, which triggers cells in the brain to release neurotransmitters that produce headache pain. How exactly the nerve gets perturbed remains unclear.

    The past few years of migraine medicine have felt like the ’90s all over again. In 2018, the FDA approved a monthly injection that prevents migraines by regulating CGRP, a neurotransmitter that’s known to spike during attacks. For 40 percent of people with chronic migraines participating in one clinical trial, the treatment cut their monthly migraine days in half. Similar remedies followed; Lady Gaga, a longtime migraine sufferer, appeared in a commercial this summer to endorse Pfizer’s CGRP-blocking pill, and the company’s CEO launched a migraine-awareness campaign earlier this month. Solid evidence has emerged that cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation techniques tailored to migraine can be helpful as part of a larger treatment plan. The FDA has cleared several wearable devices designed to curb migraines by delivering mild electric stimulation. Last year, the agency decided to speed up the development of a device that deploys gentle puffs of air into a user’s ears.

    Researchers are still, to this day, making progress on identifying migraine triggers. Experts agree on many common triggers, such as skipping meals, getting too little sleep, getting too much sleep, stress, the comedown from stress, and hormone changes linked to menstruation or menopause. They’re also realizing that some long-held beliefs about triggers might be entirely wrong. MSG, for example, probably doesn’t induce migraines; changes in air pressure don’t do so as often as many people who have migraines seem to think.

    Some supposed triggers might actually be signs of an oncoming migraine. The majority of migraine sufferers experience something called the premonitory phase, which can last for several hours or days before headache pain sets in and has its own set of symptoms, including food cravings. We migraine sufferers are frequently advised to steer clear of chocolate, but if you’re craving a Snickers bar, the migraine may already be coming whether or not you eat it. “When you get a headache, you blame it on the chocolate—even though the migraine made you eat the chocolate,” Silberstein said. “I always tell people, if they think they’re getting a migraine, eat a bar of chocolate … It’s more likely to do good than harm.”


    Silberstein’s advice sounded like absolute blasphemy to me. Virtually every migraine FAQ page in existence had led me to believe that chocolate is a ruthless trigger. Maybe I shouldn’t have been relying on general guidelines on the internet, even though they came from reputable medical institutions. But I had turned to the internet because I didn’t think my migraines necessitated a visit to a specialist. According to the American Migraine Foundation, the majority of people who have migraines never consult a doctor to receive proper diagnosis and treatment.

    Recent surveys have shown that people are reluctant to see a professional for a variety of reasons: They think their migraine isn’t bad enough, they worry that their symptoms won’t be taken seriously, or they can’t afford the care. The hot new preventative medications in particular “are extremely expensive, putting them out of reach of some of the people who might benefit the most,” Loder said. In 2018, when the much-heralded CGRP blocker hit the market, the journalist Libby Watson, a longtime migraine patient herself, interviewed migraine sufferers who described themselves as low-income, and found that most of them hadn’t heard of the new drug at all.

    Even if you can get them, the treatments don’t guarantee relief. One recent study showed that triptans might not relieve pain—or might not be tolerable—for up to 40 percent of migraine patients. Experts are still trying to figure out why the same treatment might work wonderfully for one person, and not at all for another, Minen said. Some patients find that drugs eventually stop working for them, or that they come with side effects bad enough to discourage continued use, such as dizziness and still more nausea.

    These problems remain unsolved in part because of a dearth of research. Like other conditions that mostly afflict women, migraines receive “much less funding in proportion to the burden they exert on the U.S. population,” Nature’s Kerri Smith reported in May. And many doctors are unaware of the research that exists: A 2021 study of non-migraine physicians found that 43 percent had “poor knowledge” of the condition’s symptoms and management, and just 21 percent were aware of targeted treatments. Specialists tend to have a much better knowledge base, but good luck seeing one: America has too few headache doctors, and there are significantly fewer of them in rural areas.

    Many migraine sufferers rely on over-the-counter pain relievers, myself included. Years ago, my primary-care physician prescribed me a triptan nasal spray. It produced a terrible aftertaste and worsened the throbbing in my head, and I gave up on it after only a couple of uses. Back to Excedrin I went, not realizing—until reporting this story—that nonprescription medications can cause even more attacks if you overuse them. Some people get by on home remedies that the journalist Katy Schneider, who battles migraines herself, has described as a “medicine cabinet of curiosities”; one person she interviewed shotguns an ice-cold Coke when she feels the symptoms coming on.

    When triptans and tricks fail, some people try to prevent migraines by avoiding triggers. Don’t stay up too late or sleep in. Don’t drink red wine. Put down that Snickers. This strategy of avoidance “interferes with the quality of their life in many cases,” Loder said, and probably doesn’t stop the attacks. And drawing associations is a futile exercise because most migraines are brought on by more than one trigger, Minen said. People can end up internalizing the 18th-century idea that migraines are a personal failure rather than a disease—and migraine FAQs perpetuate that myth by advising patients to live an ascetic life.

    The misconceptions surrounding migraine, combined with its invisibility, make the disorder easy to stigmatize. The authors of a 2021 review found that, compared with epilepsy, a neurological disorder with a physical manifestation, “people with chronic migraine are viewed as less trustworthy, less likely to try their hardest, and more likely to malinger.” Perhaps as a result, many feel pressure to grind through it. Migraines are estimated to account for 16 percent of presenteeism—being on the job but not operating at full capacity—in the American workforce.

    Before reporting this story, I had never thought to call my migraines a neurological disorder, let alone a “debilitating” one, as Minen and other experts do. Migraines were just this thing that I’ve lived with for more than a decade, and had accepted as an unfortunate part of my existence. Just my Excedrin and me, together forever, barreling through the wasted days. The attacks began in my late teens, around the same time that my childhood epilepsy mysteriously vanished. I never got an explanation for my seizures, despite years of daily medication and countless EEGs. A neurologist once told me that the two might be related, but he couldn’t say for sure; research has shown that people who have epilepsy are more likely to experience migraines. And so I assumed that I just had a slightly broken brain, prone to electrochemical misfiring.

    All of the experts I spoke with were politely horrified when I told them about my migraines and how I manage them. I promised them that I’d make an appointment with a specialist. Before we got off the phone, Silberstein gave me a tip. “Put a cold pack on your neck and then a heating pad, 15 minutes alternating,” he said. “It’ll take the migraine away.” He told me that researchers are developing a device that does this, but the old-fashioned way can be effective too. At this point, my cabinet of curiosities is falling apart, its hinges squeaking from overuse. I’m already rethinking my entire migraine life, so I may as well try this too.

    Marina Koren

    Source link

  • The Enigma of ‘Heat-Related’ Deaths

    The Enigma of ‘Heat-Related’ Deaths

    The autopsy should have been a piece of cake. My patient had a history of widely metastatic cancer, which was pretty straightforward as far as causes of death go. Entering the various body cavities, my colleague and I found what we anticipated: Nearly every organ was riddled with tumors. But after we had completed the work, I realized that I knew why the patient had died, but not why he’d died that day. We found no evidence of a heart attack or blood clot or ruptured bowel. Nothing to explain his sudden demise. Yes, he had advanced cancer—but he’d been living with that cancer the day before he died, and over many weeks and months preceding. I asked my colleague what he thought. Perhaps there had been some subtle change in the patient’s blood chemistry, or in his heart’s electrical signaling, that we simply couldn’t see? “I guess the patient just up and died,” he said.

    I’m a hospital pathologist; my profession is one of many trying to explain the end of life. In that role, I have learned time and again that even the most thorough medical exams leave behind uncertainty. Take the current spate of heat-related fatalities brought on by a summer of record-breaking temperatures. Residents of Phoenix endured a month of consecutive 110-degree days. People have been literally sizzling on sidewalks. And news organizations are taking note of what is said to be a growing body count: 39 heat deaths in Maricopa County, Arizona; 10 in Laredo, Texas. But the precision of these figures is illusory. Cause of death cannot be measured as exactly as the temperature, and what qualifies as “heat-related” will always be a judgment call: Some people die from heat; others just up and die when it happens to be hot.

    Mortality is contested ground, a place where different types of knowledge are in conflict. In Clark County, Nevada, for example, coroners spend weeks investigating possible heat-related deaths. Families are interviewed, death scenes are inspected, and medical tests are performed. The coroner must factor in all of these sources of information because no single autopsy finding can definitively diagnose a heat fatality. A victim may be found to have suffered from hyperthermia—an abnormally high body temperature—or they may be tossed into the more subjective bucket of those who died from ”environmental heat stress.”

    Very few deaths undergo such an extensive forensic examination in the first place. Most of the time, the circumstances appear straightforward—a 75-year-old has a stroke; a smoker succumbs to an exacerbation of his chronic lung disease—and the patient’s primary-care doctor or hospital physician completes the death certificate on their own. But heat silently worsens many preexisting conditions; oppressive temperatures can cause an already dysfunctional organ to fail. A recent study out of China estimated that mortality from heart attacks can rise as much as 74 percent during a severe, several-day heat wave. Another study from the U.S. found that even routine temperature fluctuations can subtly alter kidney function, cholesterol levels, and blood counts. Physicians can’t easily tease out these influences. If an elderly man on a park bench suddenly slouches over from a heart attack in 90-degree weather, it’s hard to say for sure whether the heat was what did him in. Epidemiologists must come to the rescue, using statistics to uncover those hidden causes at the population level. This bird’s-eye view shows a simple fact: Bad weather means more death. But it still doesn’t tell us what to think about the man on the bench.

    Research (and common sense) tells us that some individuals are going to be especially vulnerable to climate risks. Poverty, physical labor, substandard housing, advanced age, and medical comorbidities all put one in greater danger of experiencing heat-related illness. The weather has a way of kicking you while you’re down, and the wealthy and able-bodied are better able to dodge the blows. A financial struggle as small as an unpaid $51 portion of an electricity bill can prove deadly in the summer. In the autopsies I’ve performed, a patient’s family, medical record, and living situation often told a story of long-term social neglect. But there was no place on the death certificate for me to describe these tragic circumstances. There was certainly no checkbox to indicate that climate change contributed to a fatality. Such matters were out of my jurisdiction.

    The public-health approach to assessing deaths has its own problems. Mostly it’s confusing. Reams of scientific studies have reported on hundreds of different risk factors for mortality. Sultry weather appears to be dangerous, but so do skipping breakfast, taking naps, and receiving care from a male doctor. Researchers have declared just about everything a major killer. A few months ago, the surgeon general announced that feeling disconnected is as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day. The FDA commissioner has said that misinformation is the nation’s leading cause of premature death. And is poverty or medical error the fourth-leading cause? I can’t keep track.

    With so many mortality statistics at our disposal, which ones get emphasized can be more a matter of politics than science. Liberals see the current heat wave—and its wave of heat-related deaths—as an urgent call to action to combat climate change, while conservatives dismiss this concern as a mental disorder. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed concluded that worrying about climate change is irrational, because “if heat waves were as deadly as the press proclaims, Homo sapiens couldn’t have survived thousands of years without air conditioning.” (Humans survived thousands of years without penicillin, but syphilis was still a net negative.) Similarly, when COVID became the third-leading cause of death in the U.S., pandemic skeptics said it was a fiction: Victims were dying “with COVID,” not “from COVID.” Because many people who died of SARS-CoV-2 had underlying risk factors, some politicians and doctors brushed off the official numbers as hopelessly confounded. Who could say whether the virus had killed anyone at all?

    The dismissal of COVID’s carnage was mostly cynical and unscientific. But it’s true that death certificates paint one picture of the pandemic, and excess-death calculations paint another. Scientists will be debating COVID’s exact body count for decades. Fatalities from heat are subject to similar ambiguities, even as their determination comes with real-world consequences. In June, for example, officials from Multnomah County, Oregon—where Portland is located—sued oil and gas producers over the effects of a 2021 heat wave that resulted in 69 heat-related deaths, as officially recorded. This statistic will likely be subjected to intense cross-examination. The pandemic showed us that casting doubt on the deceased is a convenient strategy.

    No matter how we count the bodies, extreme weather leads to suffering—especially among the most vulnerable members of society. A lot of people have already perished during this summer’s heat wave. Their passing is more than a coincidence—not all of them just up and died.

    Benjamin Mazer

    Source link

  • The Pregnancy Risk That Doctors Won’t Mention

    The Pregnancy Risk That Doctors Won’t Mention

    The nonexhaustive list of things women are told to avoid while pregnant includes cat litter, alfalfa sprouts, deli meat, runny egg yolks, pet hamsters, sushi, herbal teas, gardening, brie cheeses, aspirin, meat with even a hint of pink, hot tubs. The chance that any of these will harm the baby is small, but why risk it?

    Yet few doctors in the U.S. tell pregnant women about the risk of catching a ubiquitous virus called cytomegalovirus, or CMV. The name might be obscure, but CMV is the leading infectious cause of birth defects in America—far ahead of toxoplasmosis from cat litter or microbes from hamsters. Bafflingly, the majority of babies infected in the womb are unaffected, but an estimated 400 born with CMV die every year. Thousands more end up with hearing and vision loss, epilepsy, developmental delays, or microcephaly, in which the head and brain are unusually small. Exactly why the virus so dramatically affects some babies but not others is unknown. There is no cure and no vaccine.

    Amanda Devereaux’s younger child, Pippa, was born with CMV, which caused damage to her brain. Pippa is prone to seizures. She could not walk until she was 2 and a half, and she is nonverbal at age 7. “I was just flabbergasted that no one told me about CMV,” says Devereaux, who is now the program director for the National CMV Foundation, which raises awareness of the virus. The nonprofit was founded by parents of children with congenital CMV. “Every single one of them says, ‘Why didn’t I hear about this?’” Devereaux told me.

    One reason that doctors have hesitated to spread the word is that the most obvious way to avoid this virus is to avoid infected toddlers. Symptoms from CMV are usually mild to nonexistent in healthy adults and children. Toddlers, who frequently pick up CMV at day care, can continue shedding the virus in their bodily fluids for months and even years while totally healthy. “I’ve encountered a classroom of 2-year-olds where every single child was shedding CMV,” Robert Pass, a retired pediatrician and longtime CMV researcher at the University of Alabama, told me when we spoke in 2021. (He recently died, at age 81.)

    This creates a common scenario for congenital CMV: A toddler in day care brings CMV home and infects Mom, who is pregnant with a younger sibling. One recent study found that congenital CMV is nearly twice as common in second-born children than in firstborns. Devereaux’s toddler son was in day care when she was pregnant. “I was sharing food with him because he would not finish his breakfast,” she told me. She had no idea that his half-eaten muffin could end up harming her unborn daughter. In hindsight, she says, “I wish I had spent less time worrying about not eating deli meat and more time focused on, Hey I’ve got this toddler at day care. I’m at risk for CMV.

    CMV is such a tricky virus because few things about it are absolute. A mother cannot avoid her toddler categorically. Most pregnant women infected with CMV do not pass it to their babies. Most infected babies end up just fine. Doctors warn patients against many risks in pregnancy—see the list above—but in this case thousands of parents every year are blindsided by a very common virus. No one has a perfect answer for how to stop it.


    Day cares have been known as hot spots for CMV since at least the 1980s, when Pass, in Alabama, and other researchers in Virginia first began tracking congenital cases back to child-care centers. The virus is rampant in day cares for the same reason that other viruses are rampant in day cares: Young children are born with no immunity, and they aren’t very diligent about avoiding one another’s saliva, urine, snot, and tears, all of which harbor CMV. Of mothers with infected toddlers in day care, a third who have never had the virus catch it within a year. And getting CMV for the first time while pregnant is the riskiest scenario; these so-called primary infections are most likely to result in serious complications for the fetus. But recent research has found that reinfections and reactivations of the virus can lead to congenital CMV too. (CMV remains inside the body forever after the first infection, much like chickenpox, which is caused by a related virus.)

    So eliminating the risk of congenital CMV entirely is impossible. But some CMV experts advocate giving women a short list of actions to reduce their risk during the nine months of pregnancy: Avoid sharing food or utensils with toddlers in day care; kiss them on the top of the head instead of on the mouth; wash your hands frequently, especially after diaper changes; and clean surfaces that come in contact with saliva or urine. A study in Italy found that pregnant women who were taught these measures cut their risk of catching CMV by sixfold. A study in France found that it lowered risk too.

    In the U.S., patients are unlikely to hear this advice from their obstetricians, though. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn’t recommend telling patients about ways to reduce CMV risk. According to ACOG, the evidence that behavioral changes can make a difference—from just a handful of studies—is not strong enough, and the organization sees downsides to the approach. Advice such as not kissing babies and toddlers could harm “a mother’s ability to bond with her children,” and these hygiene recommendations could “falsely reassure patients” about their risk of CMV, Christopher Zahn, ACOG’s interim CEO, said in a statement to The Atlantic.

    The CMV community disagrees. “I think they’re being a bit paternalistic,” says Gail Demmler-Harrison, a pediatric-infectious-diseases doctor at Texas Children’s Hospital. A group of international CMV experts, including Demmler-Harrison, endorsed patient education in a set of consensus recommendations in 2017. Devereaux, with the CMV Foundation, frames it as a matter of choice. It shouldn’t be “somebody else is saying, ‘You can’t handle this information; I’m not going to share that with you,” she told me. Without knowing about CMV, women can’t decide what kind of risk they’re comfortable with or what kind of hygiene changes are too burdensome. “It’s your choice whether you make them or not,” she says. “Having that choice is important.”

    More data on how well these behavioral changes work might be coming soon: Karen Fowler, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is enrolling hundreds of pregnant women in a clinical trial. Only 8 percent of participants had heard of CMV before joining the study, she says. Patients get a short information session about CMV and then 12 weeks of text-message reminders. Importantly, she says, “we’re keeping our message very simple”: Reduce saliva sharing: no eating leftover food, no sharing utensils, and no cleaning a pacifier in your mouth. This simple rule cuts off the most probable routes of transmission. Sure, CMV is also shed in urine, tears, and other bodily fluids—but mothers aren’t routinely putting any of those in their mouth.

    Prevention of CMV ends up the focus of so much attention because once a fetus is infected, the treatment options are not particularly good. The best antiviral against CMV is not considered safe to use during pregnancy, and another antiviral, although safer, is not that potent. After infected babies are born, antiviral therapy can help preserve hearing in those with other moderate to severe symptoms from CMV, but it can’t reverse damage in the brain. And it’s unclear how much antivirals help those with only mild symptoms. When does benefit outweigh risk? “There’s a big gray area,” says Laura Gibson, a pediatric-infectious-diseases doctor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. For these reasons, policies of whether to screen all newborns vary state to state, even hospital to hospital. Knowledge can be power—but with a virus as confusing as CMV, knowledge of an infection doesn’t always point to an obvious best choice.


    In an ideal world, all of this could be made obsolete with a CMV vaccine. But such a vaccine has proved elusive despite a lot of interest. In the U.S., the Institute of Medicine deemed a CMV vaccine the highest priority around the turn of the millennium, and about two dozen vaccine candidates have been or are being studied. All of the completed clinical trials, though, have failed. “The immunity may look robust in the first month or year, but then it wanes,” Demmler-Harrison says. And even vaccines that elicit some immune response are not necessarily able to elicit one strong enough to protect against CMV infection entirely.

    CMV is such a challenging virus to vaccinate against because it knows our immune system’s tricks. “It’s evolved with humans for millions of years,” Gibson says. “It knows how to get around and live with our immune system.” Our immune system is never able to eliminate the virus, which emerges occasionally from our cells to replicate and try to find another host. And so a vaccine that completely protects against CMV would need to prompt our immune system to do something it cannot naturally do. It would need to be better than our immune system. “As time goes on, I think fewer and fewer people are thinking that might work,” Gibson says. But a vaccine doesn’t have to protect against all infections to be useful. Because first infections are the riskiest for fetuses, being vaccinated could still reduce risk of congenital CMV.

    Whom to vaccinate is another complicated question to answer for CMV. We could vaccinate all toddlers, as we do against rubella, which is also most dangerous when passed from mother to fetus. This has the potential advantage of promoting widespread immunity that tamps down circulation of CMV, period. But the virus doesn’t actually harm toddlers much, and immunity could wane by the time they grow up to childbearing age. Or we could vaccinate teenagers, as we do against meningococcal disease, but teens are more likely to miss vaccines and again, immunity could wane too soon. So what about all pregnant women? By the time someone shows up at the doctor pregnant, it’s probably too late to protect during CMV’s highest risk period, in the first trimester. A better understanding of CMV immunity and spread could help scientists decide on the best strategy. Gibson is conducting a study (funded by Moderna, which is testing a CMV-vaccine candidate) on how the virus spreads and what kinds of immune responses are correlated with shedding.

    Until a vaccine is developed—should it happen at all—the only way to prevent CMV infection is the very old-tech method of avoiding bodily fluids. It’s imperfect. Its exact effectiveness is hard to quantify. Some people might not find it worthwhile, given the small absolute risk of CMV in any single pregnancy. There are, after all, already so many things to worry about when expecting a baby. Yet another one? Or, you might think of it, what’s one more?

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • Anti-Allergy Formula Is on the Rise. Milk Allergies Might Not Be.

    Anti-Allergy Formula Is on the Rise. Milk Allergies Might Not Be.

    This article was originally published by Undark Magazine.

    For Taylor Arnold, a registered dietitian nutritionist, feeding her second baby was not easy. At eight weeks old, he screamed when he ate and wouldn’t gain much weight. Arnold brought him to a gastroenterologist, who diagnosed him with allergic proctocolitis—an immune response to the proteins found in certain foods, which she narrowed down to cow’s milk.

    Cow’s-milk-protein allergies, or CMPA, might be on the rise—following a similar trend in other children’s food allergies—and they can upend a caregiver’s feeding plans: In many cases, a breastfeeding parent is told to eliminate dairy from their diet, or switch to a specialized hypoallergenic formula, which can be expensive.

    But although some evidence suggests that CMPA rates are climbing, the source and extent of that increase remain unclear. Some experts say that the uptick is partly because doctors are getting better at recognizing symptoms. Others claim that the condition is overdiagnosed. And among those who believe that milk-allergy rates are inflated, some suspect that the global formula industry, valued at $55 billion according to a 2022 report from the World Health Organization and UNICEF, may have an undue influence.

    Meanwhile, “no one has ever studied these kids in a systematic way,” Victoria Martin, a pediatric gastroenterologist and allergy researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, told me. “It’s pretty unusual in disease that is this common, that has been going on for this long, that there hasn’t been more careful, controlled study.”

    This lack of clarity can leave doctors in the dark about how to diagnose the condition and leave parents with more questions than answers about how best to treat it.

    When Arnold’s son became sick with CMPA symptoms, it was “really, really stressful,” she told me. Plus, “I didn’t get a lot of support from the doctors, and that was frustrating.”

    Though the gastroenterologist recommended that she switch to formula, Arnold ultimately used a lactation consultant and gave up dairy so she could continue breastfeeding. But she said she can understand why others might not make the same choice: “A lot of moms go to formula because there’s not a lot of support for how to manage the diet.”


    Food allergies primarily come in two forms: One, called an IgE-mediated allergy, has symptoms that appear soon after ingesting a food—such as swelling, hives, or difficulty breathing—and may be confirmed by a skin-prick test. The second, which Arnold’s son was diagnosed with, is a non-IgE-mediated allergy, or food-protein-induced allergic proctocolitis, and is harder to diagnose.

    With non-IgE allergies, symptom onset doesn’t tend to happen immediately after a person eats a triggering food, and there is no definitive test to confirm a diagnosis. (Some specialists don’t like to call the condition an allergy, because it doesn’t present with classic allergy symptoms.) Instead, physicians often rely on past training, online resources, or published guidelines written by experts in the field, which list symptoms and help doctors make a treatment plan.

    Numerous such guidelines exist to help providers diagnose milk allergies, but the process is not always straightforward. “It’s a perfect storm” of vague and common symptoms and no diagnostic test, Adam Fox, a pediatric allergist and a professor at King’s College London, told me, noting that commercial interests such as formula-company marketing can also be misleading. “It’s not really a surprise that you’ve got confused patients and, frankly, a lot of very confused doctors.”

    Fox is the lead author of the International Milk Allergy in Primary Care, or iMAP, guidelines, one of many similar documents intended to help physicians diagnose CMPA. But some guidelines—including iMAP, which was known as the Milk Allergy in Primary Care Guideline until 2017—have been criticized for listing a broad range of symptoms, like colic, nonspecific rashes, and constipation, which can be common in healthy infants during the first year of their life.

    “Lots of babies cry, or they [regurgitate milk], or they get a little minor rash or something,” Michael Perkin, a pediatric allergist based in the U.K., told me. “But that doesn’t mean they’ve got a pathological process going on.”

    In a paper published online in December 2021, Perkin and colleagues found that in a food-allergy trial, nearly three-quarters of the infants’ parents reported at least two symptoms that matched the iMAP guidelines’ “mild-moderate” non-IgE-mediated cow’s-milk-allergy symptoms, such as vomiting. But another study, whose authors included Perkin and Robert Boyle, a children’s-allergy specialist at Imperial College London, reviewed available evidence and found estimated that only about 1 percent of babies have a milk allergy that has been proved by what’s called a “food challenge,” in which a person is exposed to the allergen and their reactions are monitored.

    That same study reported that as many as 14 percent of families believe their baby has a milk allergy. Another study by Boyle and colleagues showed that milk-allergy formula prescriptions increased 2.8-fold in England from 2007 to 2018. Researchers at the University of Rochester found similar trends stateside: Hypoallergenic-formula sales rose from 4.9 percent of formula sold in the U.S. in 2017 to 7.6 percent in 2019.

    Perkin and Boyle suspect that the formula industry has influenced diagnosis guidelines. In their 2020 report, published in JAMA Pediatrics, they found that 81 percent of authors who had worked on various physicians’ guidelines for the condition—including several for iMAP’s 2013 guidance—reported a financial conflict of interest with formula manufacturers.

    The formula industry also sends representatives and promotional materials to some pediatric clinics. One recent study found that about 85 percent of U.S. pediatricians surveyed reported a visit by a representative, some of whom sponsored meals with them.

    Formula companies “like people getting the idea that whenever a baby cries, or does a runny poo, or anything,” it might be a milk allergy, Boyle told me.

    In response to criticism that the guidelines have influenced the increase in specialized-formula sales, Fox, the lead author of the iMap guidelines, noted that the rise began in the early 2000s. One of the first diagnosis guidelines, meanwhile, was published in 2007. He also said that the symptoms listed in the iMAP guidelines are those outlined by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the U.S.’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

    As for the conflicts of interest, Fox said: “We never made any money from this; there was never any money for the development of it. We’ve done this with best intentions. We absolutely recognize where that may not have turned out the way that we intended it; we have tried our best to address that.”

    Following backlash over close ties between the formula industry and health-care professionals, including author conflicts of interest, iMAP updated its guidelines in 2019. The new version responded directly to criticism and said the guidelines received no direct industry funding, but it acknowledged “a potential risk of unconscious bias” related to research funding, educational grants, and consultant fees. The authors noted that the new guidelines had tried to mitigate such influence through independent patient input.

    Fox also said he cut all formula ties in 2018, and led the British Society for Allergy & Clinical Immunology to do the same when he was president.

    I reached out to the Infant Nutrition Council of America, an association of some of the largest U.S. manufacturers of infant formula, multiple times but did not receive any comment in response.


    Though the guidelines have issues, Nigel Rollins, a pediatrician and researcher at the World Health Organization, told me, he sees the rise in diagnoses as driven by formula-industry marketing to parents, which can fuel the idea that fussiness or colic might be signs of a milk allergy. Parents then go to their pediatrician to talk about milk allergy, Rollins said, and “the family doctor isn’t actually well positioned to argue otherwise.”

    Rollins led much of the research in the 2022 report from the WHO and UNICEF, which surveyed more than 8,500 pregnant and postpartum people in eight countries (not including the U.S.). Of those participants, 51 percent were exposed to aggressive formula-milk marketing, which the report states “represents one of the most underappreciated risks to infants and young children’s health.”

    Amy Burris, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center, told me that there are many likely causes of overdiagnosis: “I don’t know that there’s one particular thing that stands out in my head as the reason it’s overdiagnosed.”

    Some physicians rely on their own criteria, rather than the guidelines, to diagnose non-IgE milk allergy—for instance, conducting a test that detects microscopic blood in stool. But Burris and Rollins both pointed out that healthy infants, or infants who have recently had a virus or stomach bug, can have traces of blood in their stool too.

    Martin, the allergy researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the better way to confirm an infant dairy allergy is to reintroduce milk about a month after it has been eliminated: If the symptoms reappear, then the baby most likely has the allergy. The guidelines say to do this, but both Martin and Perkin told me that this almost never happens; parents can be reluctant to reintroduce a food if their baby seems better without it.

    “I wish every physician followed the guidelines right now, until we write better guidelines, because, unequivocally, what folks are doing not following the guidelines is worse,” Martin said, adding that kids are on a restricted diet for a longer time than they should be.


    Giving up potentially allergenic foods, including dairy, isn’t without consequences. “I think there’s a lot of potential risk in having moms unnecessarily avoid cow’s milk or other foods,” Burris said. “Also, you’re putting the breastfeeding relationship at risk.”

    By the time Burris sees a baby, she said, the mother has in many cases already given up breastfeeding after a primary-care provider suggested a food allergy, and “at that point, it’s too late to restimulate the supply.” It also remains an open question whether allergens in breast milk actually trigger infant allergies. According to Perkin, the amount of cow’s-milk protein that enters breast milk is “tiny.”

    For babies, Martin said, dietary elimination may affect sensitivity to other foods. She pointed to research indicating that early introduction of food allergens such as peanuts can reduce the likelihood of developing allergies.

    Martin also said that some babies with a CMPA diagnosis may not have to give up milk entirely. She led a 2020 study suggesting that even when parents don’t elect to make any dietary changes for babies with a non-IgE-mediated food-allergy diagnosis, they later report an improvement in their baby’s symptoms by taking other steps, such as acid suppression. But when parents do make changes to their baby’s diet, in Martin’s experience, if they later reintroduce milk, “the vast majority of them do fine,” she said. “I think some people would argue that maybe you had the wrong diagnosis initially. But I think the other possibility is that it’s the right diagnosis; it just turns around pretty fast.”

    Still, many parents who give up dairy or switch to a hypoallergenic formula report an improvement in their baby’s symptoms. Arnold said her son’s symptoms improved when she eliminated dairy. But when he was about eight months old, they reintroduced the food group to his diet, and he had no issues.

    Whether that’s because the cow’s-milk-protein allergy was short-lived or because his symptoms were due to something else is unclear. But Arnold sees moms self-diagnosing their baby with food allergies on social media, and believes that many are experiencing a placebo effect when they say their baby improves. “Nobody’s immune to that. Even me,” she said. “There’s absolutely a chance that that was the case with my baby.”

    Christina Szalinski

    Source link

  • Airplane Toilets Could Catch the Next COVID Variant

    Airplane Toilets Could Catch the Next COVID Variant

    Airplane bathrooms are not most people’s idea of a good time. They’re barely big enough to turn around in. Their doors stick, like they’re trying to trap you in place. That’s to say nothing of the smell. But to the CDC, those same bathrooms might be a data gold mine.

    This month, the agency has been speaking with Concentric, the public-health and biosecurity arm of the biotech company Ginkgo Bioworks, about screening airplane wastewater for COVID-19 at airports around the country. Although plane-wastewater testing had been in the works already (a pilot program at John F. Kennedy International Airport, in New York City, concluded last summer), concerns about a new variant arising in China after the end of its “zero COVID” policies acted as a “catalyst” for the project, Matt McKnight, Ginkgo’s general manager for biosecurity, told me. According to Ginkgo, even airport administrators are getting excited. “There have been a couple of airports who have actually reached out to the CDC to ask to be part of the program,” Laura Bronner, Ginkgo’s vice president of commercial strategies, told me.

    Airplane-wastewater testing is poised to revolutionize how we track the coronavirus’s continued mutations around the world, along with other common viruses such as flu and RSV—and public-health threats that scientists don’t even know about yet. Unlike sewer-wide surveillance, which shows us how diseases are spreading among large communities, airplane surveillance is precisely targeted to catch new variants entering the country from abroad. And unlike with PCR testing, passengers don’t have to individually opt in. (The results remain anonymous either way.) McKnight compares the technique to radar: Instead of responding to an attack after it’s unfolded, America can get advance warning about new threats before they cause problems. As we enter an era in which most people don’t center their lives on avoiding COVID-19, our best contribution to public health might be using a toilet at 30,000 feet.

    Fundamentally, wastewater testing on airplanes is a smaller-scale version of the surveillance that has been taking place at municipal water networks since early 2020: Researchers perform genetic testing on sewage samples to determine how much coronavirus is present, and which variants are included. But adapting the methodology to planes will require researchers to get creative. For one thing, airplane wastewater has a higher solid-to-liquid ratio. Municipal sewage draws from bathing, cooking, washing clothes, and other activities, whereas airplane sewage is “mainly coming from the toilet,” says Kata Farkas, a microbiologist at Bangor University. For a recent study tracking COVID-19 at U.K. airports, Farkas and her colleagues had to adjust their analytical methods, tweaking the chemicals and lab techniques used to isolate the coronavirus from plane sewage.

    Researchers also need to select flights carefully to make sure the data they gather are worth the effort of collecting them. To put it bluntly, not everyone poops on the plane—and if the total number of sampled passengers is very small, the analysis isn’t likely to return much useful data. “The number of conversations we’ve had about how to inconspicuously know how many people on a flight have gone into a lavatory is hysterical,” says Casandra Philipson, who leads the Concentric bioinformatics program. (Concentric later clarified that they do not have plans to actually monitor passengers’ bathroom use.) Researchers ended up settling on an easier metric: Longer flights tend to have more bathroom use and should therefore be the focus of wastewater testing. (Philipson and her colleagues also work with the CDC to test flights from countries where the government is particularly interested in identifying new variants.)

    Beyond those technical challenges, scientists face the daunting task of collaborating with airports and airlines—large companies that aren’t used to participating in public-health surveillance. “It is a tricky environment to work in,” says Jordan Schmidt, the director of product applications at LuminUltra, a Canadian biotech company that tests wastewater at Toronto Pearson Airport. Strict security and complex bureaucracies in air travel can make collecting samples from individual planes difficult, he told me. Instead, LuminUltra samples from airport terminals and from trucks that pull sewage out of multiple planes, so the company doesn’t need to get buy-in from airlines.

    Airplane surveillance seeks to track new variants, not individual passengers: Researchers are not contact-tracing exactly which person brought a particular virus strain into the country. For that reason, companies such as Concentric aren’t planning to alert passengers that COVID-19 was found on their flight, much as some of us might appreciate that warning. Testing airplane sewage can identify variants from around the world, but it won’t necessarily tell us about new surges in the city where those planes land.

    Airplane-wastewater testing offers several advantages for epidemiologists. In general, testing sewage is “dramatically cheaper” and “dramatically less invasive” than nose-swab testing each individual person in a town or on a plane, says Rob Knight, a medical engineering professor at UC San Diego who leads the university’s wastewater-surveillance program. Earlier this month, a landmark report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (which Knight co-authored) highlighted international airports as ideal places to seek out new coronavirus variants and other pathogens. “You’re going to capture people who are traveling from other parts of the world where they might be bringing new variants,” Knight told me. And catching those new variants early is key to updating our vaccines and treatments to ensure that they continue to work well against COVID-19. Collecting more data from people traveling within the country could be useful too, Knight said, since variants can evolve at home as easily as abroad. (XBB.1.5, the latest variant dominating COVID-19 spread in the U.S., is thought to have originated in the American Northeast.) To this end, he told me, the CDC should consider monitoring large train stations or seaports too.

    When wastewater testing first took off during the pandemic, the focus was mostly on municipal facilities, because they could provide data for an entire city or county at once. But scientists have since realized that a more specific view of our waste can be helpful, especially in settings that are crucial for informing public-health actions. For example, at NYC Health + Hospitals, the city’s public health-care system, wastewater data help administrators “see 10 to 14 days in advance if there are any upticks” in coronavirus, flu, or mpox, Leopolda Silvera, Health + Hospitals’ global-health deputy, told me. Administrators use the data in decisions about safety measures and where to send resources, Silvera said: If one hospital’s sewage indicates an upcoming spike in COVID-19 cases, additional staff can be added to its emergency department.

    Schools are another obvious target for small-scale wastewater testing. In San Diego, Rebecca Fielding-Miller directed a two-year surveillance program for elementary schools. It specifically focused on underserved communities, including refugees and low-income workers who were hesitant to seek out PCR testing. Regular wastewater testing picked up asymptomatic cases with high accuracy, providing school staff and parents with “up to the minute” information about COVID-19 spread in their buildings, Fielding-Miller told me. This school year, however, funding for the program ran out.

    Even neighborhood-level surveillance, while not as granular as sampling at a plane, hospital, or school, can provide more useful data than city-wide testing. In Boston, “we really wanted hyperlocal surveillance” to inform placements of the city’s vaccine clinics, testing sites, and other public-health services, says Kathryn Hall, the deputy commissioner at the city’s public-health agency. She and her colleagues identified 11 manhole covers that provide “good coverage” of specific neighborhoods and could be tested without too much disruption to traffic. When a testing site lights up with high COVID-19 numbers, Hall’s colleagues reach out to community organizations such as health centers and senior-living facilities. “We make sure they have access to boosters, they have access to PPE, they understand what’s going on,” Hall told me. In the nearby city of Revere, a similar program run by the company CIC Health showed an uptick in RSV in neighborhood wastewater before the virus started making headlines. CIC shared the news with day-care centers and helped them respond to the surge with educational information and PPE.

    According to wastewater experts, hyperlocal programs can’t usher in a future of disease omnipotence all by themselves. Colleen Naughton, an environmental-engineering professor at UC Merced who runs the COVIDPoops19 dashboard, told me she would like to see communities with no wastewater surveillance get resources to set it up before more funding goes into testing individual buildings or manhole covers. The recent National Academies report presents a future of wastewater surveillance that includes both broad monitoring across the country and testing targeted to places where new health threats might emerge or where certain communities need local information to stay safe.

    This future will require sustained federal funding beyond the current COVID-19 emergency, which is set to expire if the Biden administration does not renew it in April. The United States needs “better and more technology, with a funding model that supports its development,” in order for wastewater’s true potential to be realized, Knight said. Airplane toilets may very well be the best first step toward that comprehensive sewage-surveillance future.

    Betsy Ladyzhets

    Source link

  • Trying to Stop Long COVID Before It Even Starts

    Trying to Stop Long COVID Before It Even Starts

    Three years into the global fight against SARS-CoV-2, the arsenal to combat long COVID remains depressingly bare. Being vaccinated seems to reduce people’s chances of developing the condition, but the only surefire option for avoiding long COVID is to avoid catching the coronavirus at all—a proposition that feels ever more improbable. For anyone who is newly infected, “we don’t have any interventions that are known to work,” says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and long-COVID researcher at Yale.

    Some researchers are hopeful that the forecast might shift soon. A pair of recent preprint studies, both now under review for publication in scientific journals, hint that two long-COVID-preventing pills might already be on our pharmacy shelves: the antiviral Paxlovid and metformin, an affordable drug commonly used for treating type 2 diabetes. When taken early in infection, each seems to at least modestly trim the chance of developing long COVID—by 42 percent, in the case of metformin. Neither set of results is a slam dunk. The Paxlovid findings did not come out of a clinical trial, and were focused on patients at high risk of developing severe, acute COVID; the metformin data did come out of a clinical trial, but the study was small. When I called more than half a dozen infectious-disease experts to discuss them, all used hopeful, but guarded, language: The results are “promising,” “intriguing”; they “warrant further investigation.”

    At this point, though, any advance at all feels momentous. Long COVID remains the pandemic’s biggest unknown: Researchers still can’t even agree on its prevalence or the features that define it. What is clear is that millions of people in the United States alone, and countless more worldwide, have experienced some form of it, and more are expected to join them. “We’ve already seen early data, and we’ll continue to see data, that that will emphasize the impact that long COVID has on our society, on quality of life, on productivity, on our health system and medical expenditures,” says Susanna Naggie, an infectious-disease physician and COVID-drug researcher at Duke University. “This needs to be a high priority,” she told me. Researchers have to trim long COVID incidence as much as possible, as soon as possible, with whatever safe, effective options they can.

    By now, news of the inertia around preventive long-COVID therapies may not come as much of a shock. Interventions that stop disease from developing are, on the whole, a neglected group; big, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials—the industry gold standard—usually look to investigate potential treatments, rather than drugs that might keep future illness at bay. It’s a bias that makes research easier and faster; it’s a core part of the American medical culture’s reactive approach to health.

    For long COVID, the terrain is even rougher. Researchers are best able to address prevention when they understand a disease’s triggers, the source of its symptoms, and who’s most at risk. That intel provides a road map, pointing them toward specific bodily systems and interventions. The potential causes of COVID, though, remain murky, says Adrian Hernandez, a cardiologist and clinical researcher at Duke. Years of research have shown that the condition is quite likely to comprise a cluster of diverse syndromes with different triggers and prognoses, more like a category (e.g., “cancer”) than a singular disease. If that’s the case, then a single preventive treatment shouldn’t be expected to cut its rates for everyone. Without a universal way to define and diagnose the condition, researchers can’t easily design trials, either. Endpoints such as hospitalization and death tend to be binary and countable. Long COVID operates in shades of gray.

    Still, some scientists might be making headway with vetted antiviral drugs, already known to slash the risk of developing severe COVID-19. A subset of long-COVID cases could be caused by bits of virus that linger in the body, prompting the immune system to wage an extended war; a drug that clears the microbe more quickly might lower the chances that any part of the invader sticks around. Paxlovid, which interferes with SARS-CoV-2’s ability to copy itself inside of our cells, fits that bill. “The idea here is really nipping it in the bud,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist and long-COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who led the recent Paxlovid work.

    Paxlovid has yet to hit the scientific jackpot: proof from a big clinical trial that shows it can prevent long COVID in newly infected people. But Al-Aly’s study, which pored over the electronic medical records of more than 56,000 high-risk patients, offers some early optimism. People who took the pills, he and his colleagues found, were 26 percent less likely to report lingering symptoms three months after their symptoms began than those who didn’t.

    The pills’ main benefit remains the prevention of severe, acute disease. (In the recent study, Paxlovid-takers were also 30 percent less likely to be hospitalized and 48 percent less likely to die.) Al-Aly expects that the drug’s effectiveness at preventing long COVID—if it’s confirmed in other populations—will be “modest, not huge.” Though the two functions could yet be linked: Some long-COVID cases may result from severe infections that damage tissues so badly that the body struggles to recover. And should Paxlovid’s potential pan out, it could help build the case for testing other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals. Al-Aly and his colleagues are currently working on a similar study into molnupiravir. “The early results are encouraging,” he told me, though “not as robust as Paxlovid.” (Another study, run by other researchers, that followed hospitalized COVID patients found those who took remdesivir were less likely to get long COVID, but a later randomized clinical trial didn’t bear that out.)

    A clinical trial testing Paxlovid’s preventive potency against long COVID is still needed. Kit Longley, a spokesperson for Pfizer, told me in an email that the company doesn’t currently have one planned, though it is “continuing to monitor data from our clinical studies and real-world evidence.” (The company is collaborating with a research group at Stanford to study Paxlovid in new clinical contexts, but they’re looking at whether the pills  might treat long COVID that’s already developed. The RECOVER trial, a large NIH-funded study on long COVID, is also focusing its current studies on treatment.) But given the meager uptake rates for Paxlovid even among those in high-risk groups, Al-Aly thinks his new data could already serve a useful purpose: providing people with extra motivation to take the drug.

    The case for adding metformin to the anti-COVID tool kit might be a bit muddier. The drug isn’t the most intuitive medication to deploy against a respiratory virus, and despite its widespread use among diabetics, its exact effects on the body remain nebulous, says Stacey Schultz-Cherry, a virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. But there are many reasons to believe it might be useful. Some research has shown that metformin can mess with the manufacture of viral proteins inside of human cells, Bramante told me, which may impede the ability of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens to reproduce. The drug also appears to rev up the disease-dueling powers of certain immune cells, and to stave off inflammation. Studies have shown that metformin can improve responses to certain vaccinations in humans and rodents, and researchers have found that people taking the drug seem less likely to get seriously sick from influenza. Even the diabetes-coronavirus connection may not be so tenuous: Metabolic disease is a risk factor for severe COVID; infection itself can put blood-sugar levels on the fritz. It’s certainly plausible that having a metabolically altered body, Schultz-Cherry told me, could make infections worse.

    But the evidence that metformin helps prevent long COVID remains sparse. Carolyn Bramante, the scientist who led the metformin study, told me that when her team first set out in 2020 to investigate the drug’s effects on SARS-CoV-2 infections in a randomized, clinical trial, long COVID wasn’t really on their radar. Like many others in their field, they were hoping to repurpose established medicines to keep infected people out of the hospital; early studies of metformin—as well as the two other drugs in their trial, the antidepressant fluvoxamine and the antiparasitic ivermectin—hinted that they’d work. Ironically, two years later, their story flipped around. A large analysis, published last summer, showed that none of the three drugs were stellar at preventing severe COVID in the short term—a disappointing result (though Bramante contends that their data still indicate that metformin does some good). Then, when Bramante and her colleagues examined their data again, they found that study participants that had taken metformin for two weeks around the start of their illness were 42 percent less likely to have a long-COVID diagnosis from their doctor nearly a year down the road. David Boulware, an infectious-disease physician who helped lead the work, considers that degree of reduction pretty decent: “Is it 100 percent? No,” he told me. “But it’s better than zero.”

    Metformin may well prove to prevent long COVID but not acute, severe COVID (or vice versa). Plenty of people who never spend time in the hospital can still end up developing chronic symptoms. And Iwasaki points out that the demographics of long-haulers and people who get severe COVID don’t really overlap; the latter skew older and male. In the future, early-infection regimens may be multipronged: antivirals, partnered with metabolic drugs, in the hopes of keeping symptoms both mild and short-lived.

    But researchers are still a long way off from delivering that reality. It’s not yet clear, for instance, whether the drugs work additively when combined, Boulware told me. Nor is it a given that they’ll work across different demographics—age, vaccination status, risk factors, and more. Bramante and Boulware’s study cast a decently wide net: Although everyone enrolled in the trial was overweight or obese, many were young and healthy; a few were even pregnant. The study was not enormous, though—about 1,000 people. It also relied on patients’ individual doctors to deliver long-COVID diagnoses, likely leading to some inconsistencies, so other studies that follow up in the future could find different results. For now, this isn’t enough to “mean we should run out and use metformin,” Schultz-Cherry, who has been battling long COVID herself, told me.

    Other medications could still fill the long-COVID gaps. Hernandez, the Duke cardiologist, is hopeful that one of his ongoing clinical trials, ACTIV-6, might provide answers soon. He and his team are testing whether any of several drugs—including ivermectin, fluvoxamine, the steroid fluticasone, and, as a new addition, the anti-inflammatory montelukast—might cut down on severe, short-term COVID. But Hernandez and his colleagues, Naggie among them, appended a check-in at the 90-day mark, when they’ll be asking their patients whether they’re experiencing a dozen or so symptoms that could hint at a chronic syndrome.

    That check-in questionnaire won’t capture the full list of long-COVID symptoms, now more than 200 strong. Still, the three-month benchmark could give them a sense of where to keep looking, and for how long. Hernandez, Naggie, and their colleagues are considering whether to extend their follow-up period to six months, maybe farther. The need for long-COVID prevention, after all, will only grow as the total infection count does. “We’re not going to get rid of long COVID anytime soon,” Iwasaki told me. “The more we can prevent onset, the better off we are.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • How Many Republicans Died Because the GOP Turned Against Vaccines?

    How Many Republicans Died Because the GOP Turned Against Vaccines?

    No country has a perfect COVID vaccination rate, even this far into the pandemic, but America’s record is particularly dismal. About a third of Americans—more than a hundred million people—have yet to get their initial shots. You can find anti-vaxxers in every corner of the country. But by far the single group of adults most likely to be unvaccinated is Republicans: 37 percent of Republicans are still unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated, compared with 9 percent of Democrats. Fourteen of the 15 states with the lowest vaccination rates voted for Donald Trump in 2020. (The other is Georgia.)

    We know that unvaccinated Americans are more likely to be Republican, that Republicans in positions of power led the movement against COVID vaccination, and that hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated Americans have died preventable deaths from the disease. The Republican Party is unquestionably complicit in the premature deaths of many of its own supporters, a phenomenon that may be without precedent in the history of both American democracy and virology.

    Obviously, nothing about being a Republican makes someone inherently anti-vaccine. Many Republicans—in fact, most of them—have gotten their first two shots. But the wildly disproportionate presence of Republicans among the unvaccinated reveals an ugly and counterintuitive aspect of the GOP campaign against vaccination: At every turn, top figures in the party have directly endangered their own constituents. Trump disparaged vaccines while president, even after orchestrating Operation Warp Speed. Other politicians, such as Texas Governor Greg Abbott, made all COVID-vaccine mandates illegal in their state. More recently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called for a grand jury to investigate the safety of COVID vaccines. The right-wing media have leaned even harder into vaccine skepticism. On his prime-time Fox News show, Tucker Carlson has regularly questioned the safety of vaccines, inviting guests who have called for the shots to be “withdrawn from the market.”

    Breaking down the cost of vaccine hesitancy would be simple if we could draw a causal relationship between Republican leaders’ anti-vaccine messaging and the adoption of those ideas by Americans, and then from those ideas to deaths due to non-vaccination. Unfortunately, we don’t have the data to do so. Individual vaccine skepticism cannot be traced back to a single source, and even if it could, we don’t know exactly who is unvaccinated and what their political affiliations are.

    What we do have is a patchwork of estimations and correlations that, taken together, paint a blurry but nevertheless grim picture of how Republican leaders spread the vaccine hesitancy that has killed so many people. We know that as of April 2022, about 318,000 people had died from COVID because they were unvaccinated, according to research from Brown University. And the close association between Republican vaccine hesitancy and higher death rates has been documented. One study estimated that by the fall of 2021, vaccine uptake accounted for 10 percent of the total difference between Republican and Democratic deaths. But that estimate has changed—and even likely grown—over time.

    Partisanship affected outcomes in the pandemic even before we had vaccines. A recent study found that from October 2020 to February 2021, the death rate in Republican-leaning counties was up to three times higher than that of Democratic-leaning counties, likely because of differences in masking and social distancing. Even when vaccines came around, these differences continued, Mauricio Santillana, an epidemiology expert at Northeastern University and a co-author of the study, told me. Follow-up research published in Lancet Regional Health Americas in October looked at deaths from April 2021 to March 2022 and found a 26 percent higher death rate in areas where voters leaned Republican. “There are subsequent and very serious [partisan] patterns with the Delta and Omicron waves, some of which can be explained by vaccination,” Bill Hanage, a co-author of the paper and an epidemiologist at Harvard, told me in an email.

    But to understand why Republicans have died at higher rates, you can’t look at vaccine status alone. Congressional districts controlled by a trifecta of Republican leaders—state governor, Senate, and House—had an 11 percent higher death rate, according to the Lancet study. A likely explanation, the authors write, could be that in the post-vaccine era, those leaders chose policies and conveyed public-health messages that made their constituents more likely to die. Although we still can’t say these decisions led to higher death rates, the association alone is jarring.

    One of the most compelling studies comes from researchers at Yale, who published their findings as a working paper in November. They link political party and excess-death rate—the percent increase in deaths above pre-COVID levels—among those registered as either Democrats or Republicans, providing a more granular view. They chose to analyze data from Florida and Ohio from before and after vaccines were available. Looking at the period before the vaccine,  researchers found a 1.6 percentage-point difference in excess death rate among Republicans and Democrats, with a higher rate among Republicans. But after vaccines became available, that gap widened dramatically to 10.4 percentage points, again with a higher Republican excess death rate. “When we compare individuals who are of the same age, who live in the same county in the same month of the pandemic, there are differences correlated with your political-party affiliation that emerge after vaccines are available,” Jacob Wallace, an assistant professor of public health at Yale who co-authored the paper, told me. “That’s a statement we can confidently make based on the study and we couldn’t before.”

    Even with this new research, it is difficult to determine just how many people died as a result of their political views. In the “excess death” study, researchers dealt only with rates of excess death, not actual death-toll numbers. Overall, excess deaths represent a small share of deaths. “On the scale of national registration for both parties,” Wallace said, “we’re talking about relatively small numbers and differences in deaths” when you look at excess death rates alone.

    The absolute number of Republican deaths is less important than the fact that they happened needlessly. Vaccines could have saved lives. And yet, the party that describes itself as pro-life campaigned against them. Democrats are not without fault, though. The Biden administration’s COVID blunders are no doubt to blame for some of the nation’s deaths. But on the whole, Democratic leaders have mostly not promoted ideas or enforced policies around COVID that actively chip away at life expectancy. It is a tragedy that the Republican push against basic lifesaving science has cut lives short and continues to do so. The partisan divide in COVID deaths, Hanage said, is just “another example of how the partisan politics of the U.S. has poisoned the well of public health.”

    What’s most concerning about all of this is that partisan disparities in death rates were also apparent before COVID. People living in Republican jurisdictions have been at a health disadvantage for more than 20 years. From 2001 to 2019, the death rate in Democratic counties decreased by 22 percent, according to a recent study; in Republican counties, it declined by only 11 percent. In the same time period, the political gap in death rates increased sixfold.

    Health outcomes have been diverging at the state level since the ’90s, Steven Woolf, an epidemiologist at Virginia Commonwealth University, told me. Woolf’s work suggests that over the decades, state policy decisions on health issues such as Medicaid, gun legislation, tobacco taxes, and, indeed, vaccines have likely had a stronger impact on state health trajectories than other factors. COVID’s high Republican death rates are not an isolated phenomenon but a continuation of this trend. As Republican-led states pushed back on lockdowns, the impact on population death rates was observed within weeks, Woolf said.

    If the issue is indeed systemic, that doesn’t bode well for the future. Other factors could explain the higher death rate in Republican-leaning places—more poverty, less education, worse socioeconomic conditions—, though Woolf said isn’t convinced that those factors aren’t related to bad state health policy too. In any case, the long-term decline of health in red states indicates that there is an ongoing problem at a high level in Republican-led places, and that something has gone awry. “If you happen to live in certain states, your chances for living a long life are going to be much higher than if you’re an American living in a different state,” Woolf said.

    Unfortunately, this trend shows no signs of breaking. The anti-science messaging that fuels such a divide is popular with Republican leaders because it plays so well with their constituents. Far-right crowds cheer for missed vaccine targets and jokes about executing scientific leaders. In an environment where partisanship trumps all—including trying to save people’s lives—such messaging is both politically effective and morally abhorrent. The data, however imperfect, demand a reckoning with the consequences of such a strategy not only during the pandemic but over the past few decades, and in the years to come. But to acknowledge how many Republicans didn’t have to die would mean giving credence to scientific and medical expertise. So long as America remains locked in a poisonous partisan battle in which science is wrongly dismissed as being associated with the left, the death toll will only rise.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • When’s the Perfect Time to Get a Flu Shot?

    When’s the Perfect Time to Get a Flu Shot?

    For about 60 years, health authorities in the United States have been championing a routine for at least some sector of the public: a yearly flu shot. That recommendation now applies to every American over the age of six months, and for many of us, flu vaccines have become a fixture of fall.

    The logic of that timeline seems solid enough. A shot in the autumn preps the body for each winter’s circulating viral strains. But years into researching flu immunity, experts have yet to reach a consensus on the optimal time to receive the vaccine—or even the number of injections that should be doled out.

    Each year, a new flu shot recipe debuts in the U.S. sometime around July or August, and according to the CDC the best time for most people to show up for an injection is about now: preferably no sooner than September, ideally no later than the end of October. Many health-care systems require their employees to get the shot in this time frame as well. But those who opt to follow the CDC current guidelines, as I recently did, then mention that fact in a forum frequented by a bunch of experts, as I also recently did, might rapidly hear that they’ve made a terrible, terrible choice.

    “There’s no way I would do what you did,” one virologist texted me. “It’s poor advice to get the flu vaccine now.” Florian Krammer, a virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine, echoed that sentiment in a tweet: “I think it is too early to get a flu shot.” When I prodded other experts to share their scheduling preferences, I found that some are September shooters, but others won’t juice up till December or later. One vaccinologist I spoke with goes totally avant-garde, and nabs multiple doses a year.

    There is definitely such a thing as getting a flu shot too early, as Helen Branswell has reported for Stat. After people get their vaccine, levels of antibodies rocket up, buoying protection against both infection and disease. But after only weeks, the number of those molecules begins to steadily tick downward, raising people’s risk of developing a symptomatic case of flu by about 6 to 18 percent, various studies have found. On average, people can expect that a good portion of their anti-flu antibodies “are meaningfully gone by about three or so months” after a shot, says Lauren Rodda, an immunologist at the University of Washington.

    That decline is why some researchers, Krammer among them, think that September and even October shots could be premature, especially if flu activity peaks well after winter begins. In about three-quarters of the flu seasons from 1982 to 2020, the virus didn’t hit its apex until January or later. Krammer, for one, told me that he usually waits until at least late November to dose up. Stanley Plotkin, a 90-year-old vaccinologist and vaccine consultant, has a different solution. People in his age group—over 65—don’t respond as well to vaccines in general, and seem to lose protection more rapidly. So for the past several years, Plotkin has doubled up on flu shots, getting one sometime before Halloween and another in January, to ensure he’s chock-full of antibodies throughout the entire risky, wintry stretch. “The higher the titers,” or antibody levels, Plotkin told me, “the better the efficacy, so I’m trying to take advantage of that.” (He made clear to me that he wasn’t “making recommendations for the rest of the world”—just “playing the odds” given his age.)

    Data on doubling up is quite sparse. But Ben Cowling, an epidemiologist and flu researcher at Hong Kong University, has been running a years-long study to figure out whether offering two vaccines a year, separated by roughly six months, could keep vulnerable people safe for longer. His target population is Hong Kongers, who often experience multiple annual flu peaks, one seeded by the Northern Hemisphere’s winter wave and another by the Southern Hemisphere’s. So far, “getting that second dose seems to give you additional protection,” Cowling told me, “and it seems like there’s no harm of getting vaccinated twice a year,” apart from the financial and logistical cost of a double rollout.

    In the U.S., though, flu season is usually synonymous with winter. And the closer together two shots are given, the more blunted the effects of the second injection might be: People who are already bustling with antibodies may obliterate a second shot’s contents before the vaccine has a chance to teach immune cells anything new. That might be why several studies that have looked at double-dosing flu shots within weeks of each other “showed no benefit” in older people and certain immunocompromised groups, Poland told me. (One exception? Organtransplant recipients. Kids getting their very first flu shot are also supposed to get two of them, four weeks apart.)

    Even at the three-ish-month mark past vaccination, the body’s anti-flu defenses don’t reset to zero, Rodda told me. Shots shore up B cells and T cells, which can survive for many months or years in various anatomical nooks and crannies. Those arsenals are especially hefty in people who have banked a lifetime of exposures to flu viruses and vaccines, and they can guard people against severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even after an antibody surge has faded. A recent study found that vaccine protection against flu hospitalizations ebbed by less than 10 percent a month after people got their shot, though the rates among adults older than 65 were a smidge higher. Still other numbers barely noted any changes in post-vaccine safeguards against symptomatic flu cases of a range of severities, at least within the first few months. “I do think the best protection is within three months of vaccination,” Cowling told me. “But there’s still a good amount by six.”

    For some young, healthy adults, a decent number of flu antibodies may actually stick around for more than a year. “You can test my blood right now,” Rodda told me. “I haven’t gotten vaccinated just yet this year, and I have detectable titers.” Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, told me he has found that some people who have regularly received flu vaccines have almost no antibody bump when they get a fresh shot: Their blood is already hopping with the molecules. Preexisting immunity also seems to be a big reason that nasal-spray-based flu vaccines don’t work terribly well in adults, whose airways have hosted far more flu viruses than children’s.

    Getting a second flu shot in a single season is pretty unlikely to hurt. But Ellebedy compares it to taking out a second insurance policy on a car that’s rarely driven: likely of quite marginal benefit for most people. Plus, because it’s not a sanctioned flu-vaccine regimen, pharmacists might be reluctant to acquiesce, Poland pointed out. Double-dosing probably wouldn’t stand much of a chance as an official CDC recommendation, either. “We do a bad enough job,” Poland said, getting Americans to take even one dose a year.

    That’s why the push to vaccinate in late summer and early fall is so essential for the single shot we currently have, says Huong McLean, a vaccine researcher at the Marshfield Clinic Research Institute in Wisconsin. “People get busy, and health systems are making sure that most people can get protected before the season starts,” she told me. Ellebedy, who’s usually a September vaccinator, told me he “doesn’t see the point of delaying vaccination for fear of having a lower antibody level in February.” Flu seasons are unpredictable, with some starting as early as October, and the viruses aren’t usually keen on giving their hosts a heads-up. That makes dillydallying a risk: Put the shot off till November or December, and “you might get infected in between,” Ellebedy said—or simply forget to make an appointment at all, especially as the holidays draw near.

    In the future, improvements to flu-shot tech could help cleave off some of the ambiguity. Higher doses of vaccine, which are given to older people, could rile up the immune system to a greater degree; the same could be true for more provocative vaccines, made with ingredients called adjuvants that trip more of the body’s defensive sensors. Injections such as those seem to “maintain higher antibody titers year-round,” says Sophie Valkenburg, an immunologist at Hong Kong University and the University of Melbourne—a trend that Ellebedy attributes to the body investing more resources in training its fighters against what it perceives to be a larger threat. Such a switch would likely come with a cost, though, McLean said: Higher doses and adjuvants “also mean more adverse events, more reactions to the vaccine.”

    For now, the only obvious choice, Rodda told me, is to “definitely get vaccinated this year.” After the past two flu seasons, one essentially absent and one super light, and with flu-vaccination rates still lackluster, Americans are more likely than not in immunity deficit. Flu-vaccination rates have also ticked downward since the coronavirus pandemic began, which means there may be an argument for erring on the early side this season, if only to ensure that people reinforce their defenses against severe disease, Rodda said. Plus, Australia’s recent flu season, often a bellwether for ours, arrived ahead of schedule.

    Even so, people who vaccinate too early could end up sicker in late winter—in the same way that people who vaccinate too late could end up sicker now. Plotkin told me that staying apprised of the epidemiology helps: “If I heard influenza outbreaks were starting to occur now, I would go and get my first dose.” But timing remains a gamble, subject to the virus’s whims. Flu is ornery and unpredictable, and often unwilling to be forecasted at all.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • The Other Abortion Pill

    The Other Abortion Pill

    In the months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, demand for medication abortion has soared. The method already accounted for more than half of all abortions in the United States before the Court’s decision; now reproductive-rights activists and sites such as Plan C, which shares information about medication abortion by mail, are fielding an explosion in interest in abortion pills. As authorized by the FDA, medication abortion consists of two drugs. The first one, mifepristone, blocks the hormone progesterone, which is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. The second, misoprostol, brings on contractions of the uterus that expel its contents. The combination is, according to studies conducted in the U.S., somewhere between 95 percent and 99 percent effective in ending a pregnancy and is extremely safe.

    The second drug, misoprostol, can also safely end a pregnancy on its own. That method has long been considered a significantly less effective alternative to the FDA-approved protocol. But a growing body of research has begun to challenge the conventional thinking. In situations where people use pills to end a pregnancy at home, studies have found far higher rates of success for misoprostol-only abortions than were found in clinical settings. One recent study in Nigeria and Argentina showed misoprostol-only abortion to be 99 percent effective.

    Even before new restrictions began to ripple across the U.S., mifepristone—often referred to as “the abortion pill”—was tightly controlled by the FDA, which requires that the drug be dispensed only by doctors certified to prescribe it and only to patients who’ve signed an agency-approved agreement. As efforts to ban that drug intensify, the relative availability of misoprostol, which can be obtained at pharmacies in every state and prescribed by any doctor, could make misoprostol alone a more common option for women seeking abortions, legally or clandestinely.

    Already, the Austria-based nonprofit Aid Access, which helps women in the U.S. order pills through the mail, helped thousands of women procure misoprostol-only regimens in the first months of the coronavirus pandemic, when shipments of mifepristone were disrupted. At least one U.S. abortion provider, Carafem, has been offering its patients a misoprostol-only option for close to two years, and other reproductive-health groups are now considering offering the same regimen. This approach follows a path that has been well established in places around the world, where mifepristone has been scarce or unavailable, but in the U.S., it represents a real shift in abortion provision.

    If in the past mifepristone has garnered the bulk of attention from politicians and the public in the U.S., that focus may owe in part to an oft-told story about the origins of “the abortion pill” and its lone inventor, the renowned French researcher Dr. Étienne-Émile Baulieu. The reality is that of the two drugs, misoprostol has always mattered more.


    For his work on mifepristone, Baulieu won one of the most prestigious prizes in medicine, whose recipients tend to be discussed as candidates for a Nobel Prize, and received France’s Legion of Honor. A lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine called him “a different kind of scientist.” And though the chemists George Teutsch and Alain Belanger actually synthesized the compound, Baulieu became, to American audiences, “the father of the abortion pill.”

    Yet mifepristone is not, by itself, a highly effective abortifacient. Taken alone, the drug ends a pregnancy only about two-thirds of the time, which is why it has always been administered in combination with a prostaglandin—a drug that mimics the function of hormones that promote menstrual cramping and inflammation.

    For years, doctors in Europe had been administering mifepristone with a prostaglandin called sulprostone. The combination was nearly 100 percent effective, but required multiple in-person visits to a clinic or hospital because sulprostone could only be given by injection. “Everyone had been looking for a prostaglandin that didn’t have to be either injected or kept frozen,” says Beverly Winikoff, the founder of Gynuity Health Projects, whose research on medication abortion helped win FDA approval in the United States.

    In Brazil, women had already found one. No individual, or individuals, have ever been widely credited for that discovery, the way Baulieu is credited for mifepristone. But scholars agree that the practice began in the country’s impoverished northeast soon after the drug went on the market in 1986.

    Manufactured by G.D. Searle & Company, misoprostol was developed to treat stomach ulcers. To women in Brazil, where abortion was and remains severely restricted, the warning on the label, to avoid taking the drug while pregnant, advertised its potential as an abortifacient. And when they found the drug safer and more effective than other clandestine methods, misoprostol’s popularity exploded. (To state the obvious, no one should interpret drug warnings for pregnant people as covert advertisements for effective abortion alternatives.)

    Soon, doctors in Brazil reported seeing fewer women with severe abortion-related complications, and Brazilian researchers began documenting the drug’s off-label use. The first such study appeared in a 1991 letter to the editor of The Lancet: Helena Coelho and her colleagues at the University of Ceara had found that knowledge of misoprostol’s capacity to induce abortion had “spread rapidly” among both women and pharmacy personnel. But it had also reached government officials, who limited sales to authorized pharmacies and, in one state, banned misoprostol entirely.

    That same year, Baulieu, the French researcher, announced that he had devised a simpler way to use mifepristone—by combining it with misoprostol, which, unlike sulprostone, could be taken by mouth. Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, Baulieu did reference misoprostol’s use in Brazil, but only as an example of what not to do. Citing anecdotal reports of cranial malformations in infants exposed to misoprostol in utero, he and colleagues claimed that administering misoprostol alone would risk “embryonic abnormalities,” adding that G.D. Searle “strongly disapproved” of the practice.

    The reports of cranial anomalies were never confirmed. But Searle did take pains to prevent the use of misoprostol for abortion, at one point publicly warning doctors in the U.S. against administering the drug to pregnant women. Over time, researchers established other important uses for misoprostol, such as treating miscarriage and preventing postpartum hemorrhage. Yet during the lifetime of its patent, the company refused to research or register the drug for any reproductive-health indication.

    Meanwhile, Brazilian newspapers had seized on the dangers that Baulieu had cited, fueling fears that failed abortions would create “a generation of monsters.” That in turn provided Brazilian authorities with a public-health rationale for regulating misoprostol as a controlled substance, the “possession or supply” of which carries penalties even more punitive than those for drug trafficking. But through informal networks, feminist activists continued helping women access both misoprostol and information about how to safely use it at home. More than three decades later, experts now credit Brazil as the birthplace of self-managed medication abortion.


    In the past few years, researchers have more formally documented what these informal networks established. In clinical trials, medication abortion with misoprostol alone was effective in completing first-trimester abortion roughly 80 percent of the time. As a rule, “We think about clinical-trials data as the gold standard,” says Caitlin Gerdts, a vice president at Ibis Reproductive Health and a senior author on the study in Nigeria and Argentina. Yet when researchers have examined misoprostol’s use in nonclinical settings, they have found far higher rates of success, with 93 to 100 percent of participants reporting complete abortions using only misoprostol. Given the many studies showing high effectiveness in self-managed settings, Gerdts says, “I think it’s time to reconsider the idea of the clinical trials data as being paramount.”

    One reason for the greater effectiveness of misoprostol alone in studies of self-managed abortion may have to do with how the studies were designed. “The problem with clinical trials is that often when we ask somebody to follow up in a week or two weeks, the body hasn’t had enough time to expel all of the products of conception,” says Dr. Angel Foster, a health-science professor at the University of Ottawa, whose work on the Thailand-Myanmar border was the first to rigorously investigate the effectiveness of misoprostol alone for abortion outside a formal health system. “If there’s a smudge on an ultrasound, it’s not that there’s a continuing pregnancy—it’s just debris. But rather than let the uterus absorb it or expel it, we do an evacuation procedure and we count it as a failure.” In studies of self-managed abortion, she says, the follow-up period tends to be longer—three or four weeks—and surgical intervention may not always be an option.

    “I do think because of the way it’s been treated in clinical trials, misoprostol has been defined as much less effective than we now believe it to be,” Foster says. “We talk about mifepristone as ‘the abortion pill,’ but I think it’s more appropriate to think of it as a pretreatment or an adjunct therapy. Because it’s really the misoprostol that’s doing the lion’s share of the work.”

    Elizabeth Raymond, a senior medical associate at Gynuity and the lead author of a systematic review of clinical trials on the use of misoprostol alone for early abortion, acknowledges that the clinical studies may have been too quick to intervene. But she says the shorter follow-up period was not without reason. Using ultrasound and a blood test to measure the amount of hCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, doctors can diagnose a complete abortion “quite quickly, certainly within one or two weeks,” she says, “and the researchers wanted to do the assessments as soon as reasonable. They saw no sense in delaying.” Raymond suspects that misoprostol alone isn’t quite as effective as reported in the study in Nigeria and Argentina, in part because that study relied on its subjects to self-report whether the abortion was complete. “I think it’s an intriguing study, and it’s true that misoprostol alone is more effective than we thought,” she says, “but I think the general feeling is, if you can get both drugs, you should do that. The combination is more effective, and it may cause less cramping and bleeding.”

    Those side effects aren’t a safety concern, says Dr. Julie Amaon, the medical director of Just the Pill, which delivers abortion medication to people in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and Minnesota. “But it’s something to keep in mind,” she says, adding that anyone self-managing an abortion at home should adhere to the WHO-recommended protocol and follow up with a doctor, whether in person, by phone, or by text, to ensure that the process is complete. In the U.S., the FDA has approved only the two-drug regimen; although the WHO’s recommendations also suggest a preference for medication abortion with both drugs, that agency does recommend misoprostol-only abortion “in settings where mifepristone is not available.”

    Right now, lawmakers across the U.S. are working to put both drugs out of reach. Fourteen states now fully or partially ban both mifepristone and misoprostol. Of the two drugs, though, misoprostol is still more easily obtained, either by prescription in pharmacies or via nonprofit groups in the U.S. and overseas. The Biden administration has said that it intends to maintain access to medication abortion, but so far has not acted to ease the stricter regulations on mifepristone. As long as those restrictions remain in place, ending a pregnancy with misoprostol alone could become a more common choice for people with few options.

    According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health-research group that supports abortion rights, though the rate is difficult to measure, in the past self-managed abortions probably haven’t occurred in the U.S. on a large scale. But as conditions in red states come to resemble those in Brazil, the practice could become more and more common. In this way, says Mariana Prandini Assis, a Brazilian social scientist who has written extensively on abortion, the fall of Roe may well lead to the normalization in America of self-managed abortion with pills—a choice once thought of as a last resort or an act of desperation. For that reason, she says, the Brazilian women who pioneered the use of misoprostol for abortion should be considered the “other inventors of ‘the abortion pill.’”

    Patrick Adams

    Source link

  • ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    The most haunting memory of the pandemic for Laura, a doctor who practices internal medicine in New York, is a patient who never got COVID at all. A middle-aged man diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer in 2019, he underwent surgery and a round of successful chemotherapy and was due for regular checkups to make sure the tumor wasn’t growing. Then the pandemic hit, and he decided that going to the hospital wasn’t worth the risk of getting COVID. So he put it off … and put it off. “The next time I saw him, in early 2022, he required hospice care,” Laura told me. He died shortly after. With proper care, Laura said, “he could have stayed alive indefinitely.” (The Atlantic agreed to withhold Laura’s last name, because she isn’t authorized to speak publicly about her patients.)

    Early in the pandemic, when much of the country was in lockdown, forgoing nonemergency health care as Laura’s patient did seemed like the right thing to do. But the health-care delays didn’t just end when America began to reopen in the summer of 2020. Patients were putting off health care through the end of the first pandemic year, when vaccines weren’t yet widely available. And they were still doing so well into 2021, at which point much of the country seemed to be moving on from COVID.

    By this point, the coronavirus has killed more than 1 million Americans and debilitated many more. One estimate shows that life expectancy in the U.S. fell 2.41 years from 2019 to 2021. But the delays in health care over the past two and a half years have allowed ailments to unduly worsen, wearing down people with non-COVID medical problems too. “It just seems like my patients are sicker,” Laura said. Compared with before the pandemic, she is seeing more people further along with AIDS, more people with irreversible heart failure, and more people with end-stage kidney failure. Mental-health issues are more severe, and her patients struggling with addiction have been more likely to relapse.

    Even as Americans are treating the pandemic like an afterthought, a disturbing possibility remains: COVID aside, is the country simply going to be in worse health than before the pandemic? According to health-care workers, administrations, and researchers I talked with from across the country, patients are still dealing with a suite of problems from delaying care during the pandemic, problems that in some cases they will be facing for the rest of their lives. The scope of this damage isn’t yet clear—and likely won’t come into focus for several years—but there are troubling signs of a looming chronic health crisis the country has yet to reckon with. At some point, the emergency phase of COVID will end, but the physical toll of the pandemic may linger in the bodies of Americans for decades to come.


    During those bleak pre-vaccine dark ages, going to the doctor could feel like a disaster in waiting. Many of the country’s hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID patients, and outpatient clinics had closed. As a result, in every week through July 2020, roughly 45 percent of American adults said that over the preceding month, they either put off medical care or didn’t get it at all because of the pandemic. Once they did come in, they were sicker—a trend observed for all sorts of ailments, including childhood diabetes, appendicitis, and cancer. A recent study analyzed the 8.4 million non-COVID Medicare hospitalizations from April 2020 to September 2021 and found not only that hospital admissions plummeted, but also that those admitted to hospitals were up to 20 percent more likely to die—an astonishing effect that lasted through the length of the study.

    Partly, that result came about because only those who were sicker made it to the hospital, James Goodwin, one of the study’s authors and a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, in Galveston, told me. It was also partly because overwhelmed hospitals were giving worse care. But Goodwin estimates that “more than half the cause was people delaying medical care early in their illness and therefore being more likely to die. Instead of coming in with a urinary tract infection, they’re already getting septic. I mean, people were having heart attacks and not showing up at the hospital.”

    For some conditions, skipping a checkup or two may not matter all that much in the long run. But for other conditions, every doctor’s visit can count. Take the tens of millions of Americans with vascular issues in their feet and legs due to diabetes or peripheral artery disease. Their problems might lead to, say, ulcers on the foot that can be treated with regular medical care, but delays of even a few months can increase the risk of amputation. When patients came in later in 2020, it was sometimes too late to save the limb. An Ohio trauma center found that the odds of undergoing a diabetes-related amputation in 2020 were almost 11 times higher once the pandemic hit versus earlier in the year.

    Although only a small percentage of Americans lost a limb, the lack of care early in the pandemic helped fuel a dangerous spike in substance-abuse disorders. In a matter of weeks or months, people’s support systems collapsed, and for some, years of work overcoming an addiction unraveled. “My patients took a huge step back, probably more than many of us realize,” Aarti Patel, a physician assistant at a Lower Manhattan community hospital, told me. One of her patients, a man in his late 50s who was five years sober, started drinking again during the pandemic and eventually landed in the hospital for withdrawal. Patients like this man, she said, “would have really difficult, long hospital stays, because they were at really high risk of DTs, alcohol seizures. Some of them even had to go to the ICU because [the withdrawal] was so severe.”

    Later in the year, when doctors’ offices were up and running, “a lot of patients expressed that they didn’t want to go back for care right away,” says Kim Muellers, a graduate student at Pace University who is studying the effects of COVID on medical care in New York City, North Carolina, and Florida. Indeed, through the spring of 2021, the top reason Medicare recipients failed to seek care was they didn’t want to be at a medical facility. Other people were avoiding the doctor because they’d lost their job and health insurance and couldn’t afford the bills.

    The problem, doctors told me, is that all of those missed appointments start to add up. Patients with high blood pressure or blood sugar, for example, may now be less likely to have their conditions under control—which after enough time can lead to all sorts of other ailments. Losing a limb can pose challenges for patients that will last for the rest of their lives. Relapses can put people at a higher risk for lifelong medical complications. Cancer screenings plummeted, and even a few weeks without treatment can increase the chance of dying from the disease. In other words, even short-term delays can cause long-term havoc.

    To make matters worse, the health-care delays fueling a sicker America may not be totally over yet, either. After so many backups, some health-care systems, hobbled by workforce shortages, are scrambling to address the pent-up demand for care that patients can simply no longer put off, according to administrators and doctors from several major health systems, including Cleveland Clinic, the Veterans Health Administration, and Mayo Clinic. Disruptions in the global supply chain are forcing doctors to ration basic supplies, adding to backlogs. Amy Oxentenko, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona who helps oversee clinical practice across the entire Mayo system, says that “all of these things are just adding up to a continued delay, and I think we’ll see impacts for years to come.”


    It’s still early, and not everything that providers told me is necessarily showing up in the data. Oddly enough, the CDC’s National Health Interview Survey found that most Americans were able to see a doctor at least once during the first year of the pandemic. And the same survey has not revealed any uptick in most health conditions, including asthma episodes, high blood pressure, and chronic pain—which might be expected if America were getting sicker.

    It’s even conceivable that the disturbing observations of clinicians are a statistical illusion. If for whatever reason only sicker people are now being seen by—or able to access—a doctor, then it can be true both that providers are seeing more seriously ill patients in medical facilities and that the total number of seriously ill people in the community is staying the same. The scope of the damage just isn’t yet clear: Maybe a smaller number of people will be worse off because of delayed cancer care or substance-abuse relapses, or maybe far more people—more than tens of million of Americans—will be dealing with exacerbated issues for the rest of their lives.

    None of this accounts for what COVID itself is doing to Americans, of course. The health-care system is only beginning to grapple with the ways in which a past bout with COVID is a long-term risk for overall health, or the extent to which long COVID can complicate other conditions. The pandemic may feel “over” for lots of Americans, but many who made it through the gantlet of the past two-plus years may end up living sicker, and dying sooner.

    This disturbing prospect is not only poised to further devastate communities; it’s also bad news for health-care workers already exhausted by COVID. Laura, the Manhattan internist who treated the colon-cancer patient, told me it’s disheartening to see so many people showing up at irreversible points in their disease. “As doctors,” she said, “our overall batting average is going down.” Aarti Patel, the physician assistant, put it in blunter terms: “Burnout is probably too simple a term. We’re in severe moral distress.”

    Nothing about this grim fate was inevitable. Laura told me that “going to the doctor mid-pandemic may have posed a small risk in terms of COVID, but not going was risky in terms of letting disease go unchecked. And in retrospect it seems that many people didn’t quite get that.” But there didn’t have to be such a stark trade-off between fighting a pandemic and maintaining health care for other medical conditions.

    Some hospitals—at least the better-resourced ones—figured out how to avoid the worst kind of delays. Mayo Clinic, for example, is one of a number of systems with a sophisticated triage algorithm that prioritizes patients needing acute care. In the spring of 2021, Cleveland Clinic launched a massive outreach blitz to schedule some 86,000 appointments, according to Lisa Yerian, the chief improvement officer. And the Veterans Health Administration provided iPads to thousands of veterans who lacked other means of accessing the internet in the spring of 2020, ensuring a more seamless transition to virtual care, Joe Francis, who directs health-care analytics, told me. Thanks in part to these efforts, Francis said, high-risk patients at the VHA were being seen at pre-pandemic levels a mere six months into the pandemic.

    These health-care systems also suggest a path forward. America may still be able to stave off the worst of the collateral damage by reaching the patients who have fallen through the cracks—and already the data suggest that these patients tend to be disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and low-income. Tragically, it’s too late for some Americans: People who died of cancer can’t come back to life; amputated limbs can’t regrow. Others still have plenty of time. Hypertension that’s currently uncontrolled can be tamped down before causing an early heart attack; drinking that’s gotten out of hand can be corralled before it leads to liver failure in a decade; undetected tumors can be spotted in time for treatment. An uptick in premature death and disability, summed over millions of Americans, could strain the health-care system for years. But it’s still possible to prevent an acute public-health crisis from seeding an even bigger chronic one.

    Tim Requarth

    Source link