Pulmonology

TOPLINE:

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors led to no significant difference in survival or respiratory-related hospitalizations, compared with non-TNF inhibitors, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American College of Chest Physicians conditionally advise against the use of TNF inhibitors for treating ILD in patients with RA-ILD, with persisting uncertainty about the safety of TNF inhibitors.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs, with a focus on comparing outcomes in patients with RA-ILD who initiated TNF or non-TNF inhibitors between 2006 and 2018.
• A total of 1047 US veterans with RA-ILD were included, with 237 who initiated TNF inhibitors propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio with 237 who initiated non-TNF inhibitors (mean age, 68 years; 92% men).
• The primary composite outcome was time to death or respiratory-related hospitalization over a follow-up period of up to 3 years.
• The secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, respiratory-related mortality, and respiratory-related hospitalization, with additional assessments over a 1-year period.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was observed in the composite outcome of death or respiratory-related hospitalization between the TNF and non-TNF inhibitor groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.58).
• No significant differences in the risk for respiratory-related hospitalization and all-cause or respiratory-related mortality were found between the TNF and non-TNF inhibitor groups. Similar findings were observed for all the outcomes during 1 year of follow-up.
• The mean duration of medication use prior to discontinuation, the time to discontinuation, and the mean predicted forced vital capacity percentage were similar for both groups.
• In a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 65 years, those treated with non-TNF inhibitors had a higher risk for the composite outcome and all-cause and respiratory-related mortality than those treated with TNF inhibitors. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between the two treatment groups among patients aged < 65 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results do not suggest that systematic avoidance of TNF inhibitors is required in all patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated ILD. However, given disease heterogeneity and imprecision of our estimates, some subpopulations of patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated ILD might benefit from specific biological or targeted synthetic DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha It was published online on January 7, 2025, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Administrative algorithms were used for identifying RA-ILD, potentially leading to misclassification and limiting phenotyping accuracy. Even with the use of propensity score methods, there might still be residual selection bias or unmeasured confounding. The study lacked comprehensive measures of posttreatment forced vital capacity and other indicators of ILD severity. The study population, predominantly men and those with a smoking history, may limit the generalizability of the findings to other groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was primarily funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies unrelated to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors led to no significant difference in survival or respiratory-related hospitalizations, compared with non-TNF inhibitors, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American College of Chest Physicians conditionally advise against the use of TNF inhibitors for treating ILD in patients with RA-ILD, with persisting uncertainty about the safety of TNF inhibitors.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs, with a focus on comparing outcomes in patients with RA-ILD who initiated TNF or non-TNF inhibitors between 2006 and 2018.
• A total of 1047 US veterans with RA-ILD were included, with 237 who initiated TNF inhibitors propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio with 237 who initiated non-TNF inhibitors (mean age, 68 years; 92% men).
• The primary composite outcome was time to death or respiratory-related hospitalization over a follow-up period of up to 3 years.
• The secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, respiratory-related mortality, and respiratory-related hospitalization, with additional assessments over a 1-year period.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was observed in the composite outcome of death or respiratory-related hospitalization between the TNF and non-TNF inhibitor groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.58).
• No significant differences in the risk for respiratory-related hospitalization and all-cause or respiratory-related mortality were found between the TNF and non-TNF inhibitor groups. Similar findings were observed for all the outcomes during 1 year of follow-up.
• The mean duration of medication use prior to discontinuation, the time to discontinuation, and the mean predicted forced vital capacity percentage were similar for both groups.
• In a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 65 years, those treated with non-TNF inhibitors had a higher risk for the composite outcome and all-cause and respiratory-related mortality than those treated with TNF inhibitors. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between the two treatment groups among patients aged < 65 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results do not suggest that systematic avoidance of TNF inhibitors is required in all patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated ILD. However, given disease heterogeneity and imprecision of our estimates, some subpopulations of patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated ILD might benefit from specific biological or targeted synthetic DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha It was published online on January 7, 2025, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Administrative algorithms were used for identifying RA-ILD, potentially leading to misclassification and limiting phenotyping accuracy. Even with the use of propensity score methods, there might still be residual selection bias or unmeasured confounding. The study lacked comprehensive measures of posttreatment forced vital capacity and other indicators of ILD severity. The study population, predominantly men and those with a smoking history, may limit the generalizability of the findings to other groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was primarily funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies unrelated to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors led to no significant difference in survival or respiratory-related hospitalizations, compared with non-TNF inhibitors, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American College of Chest Physicians conditionally advise against the use of TNF inhibitors for treating ILD in patients with RA-ILD, with persisting uncertainty about the safety of TNF inhibitors.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs, with a focus on comparing outcomes in patients with RA-ILD who initiated TNF or non-TNF inhibitors between 2006 and 2018.
• A total of 1047 US veterans with RA-ILD were included, with 237 who initiated TNF inhibitors propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio with 237 who initiated non-TNF inhibitors (mean age, 68 years; 92% men).
• The primary composite outcome was time to death or respiratory-related hospitalization over a follow-up period of up to 3 years.
• The secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, respiratory-related mortality, and respiratory-related hospitalization, with additional assessments over a 1-year period.

TAKEAWAY:

• No significant difference was observed in the composite outcome of death or respiratory-related hospitalization between the TNF and non-TNF inhibitor groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.58).
• No significant differences in the risk for respiratory-related hospitalization and all-cause or respiratory-related mortality were found between the TNF and non-TNF inhibitor groups. Similar findings were observed for all the outcomes during 1 year of follow-up.
• The mean duration of medication use prior to discontinuation, the time to discontinuation, and the mean predicted forced vital capacity percentage were similar for both groups.
• In a subgroup analysis of patients aged ≥ 65 years, those treated with non-TNF inhibitors had a higher risk for the composite outcome and all-cause and respiratory-related mortality than those treated with TNF inhibitors. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between the two treatment groups among patients aged < 65 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results do not suggest that systematic avoidance of TNF inhibitors is required in all patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated ILD. However, given disease heterogeneity and imprecision of our estimates, some subpopulations of patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated ILD might benefit from specific biological or targeted synthetic DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] treatment strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha It was published online on January 7, 2025, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Administrative algorithms were used for identifying RA-ILD, potentially leading to misclassification and limiting phenotyping accuracy. Even with the use of propensity score methods, there might still be residual selection bias or unmeasured confounding. The study lacked comprehensive measures of posttreatment forced vital capacity and other indicators of ILD severity. The study population, predominantly men and those with a smoking history, may limit the generalizability of the findings to other groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was primarily funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Some authors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies unrelated to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with asthma scored significantly lower than those without asthma on measures of episodic memory, based on longitudinal data from nearly 500 individuals.

Animal models have shown associations between asthma and memory problems, but data for children are lacking, wrote Nicholas J. Christopher-Hayes, MA, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

“Asthma is very frequent among children, and there is mounting evidence from rodent models that asthma may result in neural injury in the hippocampus, which in turn may cause memory loss,” Christopher-Hayes said in an interview. “Although there is also a good amount of research with older adults, very little research has been done with children, the period that is most frequently linked to asthma onset,” he said. Therefore, the researchers leveraged a large national study on child development to examine development of memory as a function of asthma exposure.

In this study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers conducted both a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which began in 2015. Children were enrolled at ages 9-10 years with a follow-up assessment 1-2 years later.

The participants were categorized as early childhood-onset asthma (asthma at baseline and follow-up), later childhood-onset asthma (asthma at follow-up only), or no asthma history. The primary outcome of the longitudinal analysis was episodic memory. Approximately half of the participants were boys, and slightly more than half were White.

Among 474 children reviewed in the longitudinal analysis, 135 had early-onset asthma, 102 had later-onset asthma, and 237 had no asthma and served as control individuals. Overall, those with early-onset asthma showed significantly lower rates of longitudinal memory improvements at follow-up compared with the comparison group (P < .01).

Developmental memory improvement in children with later-onset asthma was not significantly different from the control individuals. 

Secondary outcomes included processing speed and inhibition, and attention. In a cross-sectional analysis with a larger sample of 2062 children from the same database (1031 with any asthma), those with asthma scored significantly lower on measures not only of episodic memory but also processing speed and inhibition/attention than children with no asthma, with P values of .04, .01, and .02, respectively.

The results were limited by several factors, including the reliance on parent reports for indicators of asthma and the lack of data on the potential effect of prescription corticosteroid use on neurocognitive development, the researchers noted.

The mechanism behind the association remains unclear; the inflammation associated with asthma may disrupt neural processing and manifest as cognitive dysfunction, as has been seen in rodent models of asthma, the researchers wrote. “It is possible that associations between asthma and developmental trajectories emerge earlier for memory, perhaps due to its sensitivity to subtle hippocampal injury,” they noted.

Longer follow-up studies are needed to fully understand how childhood asthma predicts memory declines or difficulties in childhood and beyond, said Christopher-Hayes. “We also need additional studies to understand why children who were diagnosed earlier and had asthma for longer seem to be particularly affected,” he said.

The results of this study were consistent with previous findings and therefore not surprising, senior author Simona Ghetti, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. However, the finding that the extent of exposure to asthma was associated with slower memory improvement in childhood was striking, she said. That children with an earlier asthma onset who had disease indicators for a longer period showed a slower development of memory over time, suggests that asthma exposure may affect the developmental trajectory of memory, Ghetti noted. 

“Recommendations to clinicians are premature because we need a better understanding of the boundary conditions, such as the minimal level of asthma exposure that might generate memory difficulties,” said Ghetti.

“Nevertheless, our results underscore the importance of looking at asthma as a potential source of cognitive difficulty in children,” she said.

 

Asthma’s Extensive Effect

Evidence is mounting that a diagnosis of asthma may have implications outside the pulmonary system, Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief of the Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care at UT Health, San Antonio, said in an interview. 

“Asthmatics may be at risk of nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic conditions, but there is emerging of evidence inflammation associated with asthma may affect other organ systems,” said Maselli, who was not involved in the study.

“For example, chronic inflammation in asthmatics may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Although less is known about the effects of asthma on the nervous system, animal models suggest that inflammation associated with asthma may result in neuronal injury and potential effects on memory, said Maselli.

The findings of this study provide evidence of potential detrimental effects on the memory of children with asthma but should be interpreted with caution, Maselli said. “Children with chronic medical conditions may have an inherent disadvantage compared with their peers due to the burden of their disease, medication utilization and side effects, absenteeism from school, physical limitations, and other disease-specific circumstances,” he noted.

“Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, has strong links to low socioeconomic factors that are closely tied to access to adequate medical care, nutrition, educational institutions, and other relevant contributors to normal cognitive development,” Maselli said. Although the authors account for some of these socioeconomic factors by evaluating income and race, other variables may have influenced the results, he added.

Overall, this study’s findings suggested that the diagnosis of asthma in children may be associated with memory deficits and may influence neurodevelopment; however, more research is needed to determine whether the findings are replicated in other cohorts, said Maselli. “In particular, evaluating the effects of the severity of asthma and different asthma endotypes would be crucial to identify children with a higher risk of memory or cognitive deficits and confirm these associations,” he said.

This study was funded by the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, and by a Learning, Memory, and Plasticity Training Program Fellowship grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Maselli had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with asthma scored significantly lower than those without asthma on measures of episodic memory, based on longitudinal data from nearly 500 individuals.

Animal models have shown associations between asthma and memory problems, but data for children are lacking, wrote Nicholas J. Christopher-Hayes, MA, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

“Asthma is very frequent among children, and there is mounting evidence from rodent models that asthma may result in neural injury in the hippocampus, which in turn may cause memory loss,” Christopher-Hayes said in an interview. “Although there is also a good amount of research with older adults, very little research has been done with children, the period that is most frequently linked to asthma onset,” he said. Therefore, the researchers leveraged a large national study on child development to examine development of memory as a function of asthma exposure.

In this study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers conducted both a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which began in 2015. Children were enrolled at ages 9-10 years with a follow-up assessment 1-2 years later.

The participants were categorized as early childhood-onset asthma (asthma at baseline and follow-up), later childhood-onset asthma (asthma at follow-up only), or no asthma history. The primary outcome of the longitudinal analysis was episodic memory. Approximately half of the participants were boys, and slightly more than half were White.

Among 474 children reviewed in the longitudinal analysis, 135 had early-onset asthma, 102 had later-onset asthma, and 237 had no asthma and served as control individuals. Overall, those with early-onset asthma showed significantly lower rates of longitudinal memory improvements at follow-up compared with the comparison group (P < .01).

Developmental memory improvement in children with later-onset asthma was not significantly different from the control individuals. 

Secondary outcomes included processing speed and inhibition, and attention. In a cross-sectional analysis with a larger sample of 2062 children from the same database (1031 with any asthma), those with asthma scored significantly lower on measures not only of episodic memory but also processing speed and inhibition/attention than children with no asthma, with P values of .04, .01, and .02, respectively.

The results were limited by several factors, including the reliance on parent reports for indicators of asthma and the lack of data on the potential effect of prescription corticosteroid use on neurocognitive development, the researchers noted.

The mechanism behind the association remains unclear; the inflammation associated with asthma may disrupt neural processing and manifest as cognitive dysfunction, as has been seen in rodent models of asthma, the researchers wrote. “It is possible that associations between asthma and developmental trajectories emerge earlier for memory, perhaps due to its sensitivity to subtle hippocampal injury,” they noted.

Longer follow-up studies are needed to fully understand how childhood asthma predicts memory declines or difficulties in childhood and beyond, said Christopher-Hayes. “We also need additional studies to understand why children who were diagnosed earlier and had asthma for longer seem to be particularly affected,” he said.

The results of this study were consistent with previous findings and therefore not surprising, senior author Simona Ghetti, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. However, the finding that the extent of exposure to asthma was associated with slower memory improvement in childhood was striking, she said. That children with an earlier asthma onset who had disease indicators for a longer period showed a slower development of memory over time, suggests that asthma exposure may affect the developmental trajectory of memory, Ghetti noted. 

“Recommendations to clinicians are premature because we need a better understanding of the boundary conditions, such as the minimal level of asthma exposure that might generate memory difficulties,” said Ghetti.

“Nevertheless, our results underscore the importance of looking at asthma as a potential source of cognitive difficulty in children,” she said.

 

Asthma’s Extensive Effect

Evidence is mounting that a diagnosis of asthma may have implications outside the pulmonary system, Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief of the Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care at UT Health, San Antonio, said in an interview. 

“Asthmatics may be at risk of nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic conditions, but there is emerging of evidence inflammation associated with asthma may affect other organ systems,” said Maselli, who was not involved in the study.

“For example, chronic inflammation in asthmatics may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Although less is known about the effects of asthma on the nervous system, animal models suggest that inflammation associated with asthma may result in neuronal injury and potential effects on memory, said Maselli.

The findings of this study provide evidence of potential detrimental effects on the memory of children with asthma but should be interpreted with caution, Maselli said. “Children with chronic medical conditions may have an inherent disadvantage compared with their peers due to the burden of their disease, medication utilization and side effects, absenteeism from school, physical limitations, and other disease-specific circumstances,” he noted.

“Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, has strong links to low socioeconomic factors that are closely tied to access to adequate medical care, nutrition, educational institutions, and other relevant contributors to normal cognitive development,” Maselli said. Although the authors account for some of these socioeconomic factors by evaluating income and race, other variables may have influenced the results, he added.

Overall, this study’s findings suggested that the diagnosis of asthma in children may be associated with memory deficits and may influence neurodevelopment; however, more research is needed to determine whether the findings are replicated in other cohorts, said Maselli. “In particular, evaluating the effects of the severity of asthma and different asthma endotypes would be crucial to identify children with a higher risk of memory or cognitive deficits and confirm these associations,” he said.

This study was funded by the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, and by a Learning, Memory, and Plasticity Training Program Fellowship grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Maselli had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with asthma scored significantly lower than those without asthma on measures of episodic memory, based on longitudinal data from nearly 500 individuals.

Animal models have shown associations between asthma and memory problems, but data for children are lacking, wrote Nicholas J. Christopher-Hayes, MA, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

“Asthma is very frequent among children, and there is mounting evidence from rodent models that asthma may result in neural injury in the hippocampus, which in turn may cause memory loss,” Christopher-Hayes said in an interview. “Although there is also a good amount of research with older adults, very little research has been done with children, the period that is most frequently linked to asthma onset,” he said. Therefore, the researchers leveraged a large national study on child development to examine development of memory as a function of asthma exposure.

In this study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers conducted both a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which began in 2015. Children were enrolled at ages 9-10 years with a follow-up assessment 1-2 years later.

The participants were categorized as early childhood-onset asthma (asthma at baseline and follow-up), later childhood-onset asthma (asthma at follow-up only), or no asthma history. The primary outcome of the longitudinal analysis was episodic memory. Approximately half of the participants were boys, and slightly more than half were White.

Among 474 children reviewed in the longitudinal analysis, 135 had early-onset asthma, 102 had later-onset asthma, and 237 had no asthma and served as control individuals. Overall, those with early-onset asthma showed significantly lower rates of longitudinal memory improvements at follow-up compared with the comparison group (P < .01).

Developmental memory improvement in children with later-onset asthma was not significantly different from the control individuals. 

Secondary outcomes included processing speed and inhibition, and attention. In a cross-sectional analysis with a larger sample of 2062 children from the same database (1031 with any asthma), those with asthma scored significantly lower on measures not only of episodic memory but also processing speed and inhibition/attention than children with no asthma, with P values of .04, .01, and .02, respectively.

The results were limited by several factors, including the reliance on parent reports for indicators of asthma and the lack of data on the potential effect of prescription corticosteroid use on neurocognitive development, the researchers noted.

The mechanism behind the association remains unclear; the inflammation associated with asthma may disrupt neural processing and manifest as cognitive dysfunction, as has been seen in rodent models of asthma, the researchers wrote. “It is possible that associations between asthma and developmental trajectories emerge earlier for memory, perhaps due to its sensitivity to subtle hippocampal injury,” they noted.

Longer follow-up studies are needed to fully understand how childhood asthma predicts memory declines or difficulties in childhood and beyond, said Christopher-Hayes. “We also need additional studies to understand why children who were diagnosed earlier and had asthma for longer seem to be particularly affected,” he said.

The results of this study were consistent with previous findings and therefore not surprising, senior author Simona Ghetti, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. However, the finding that the extent of exposure to asthma was associated with slower memory improvement in childhood was striking, she said. That children with an earlier asthma onset who had disease indicators for a longer period showed a slower development of memory over time, suggests that asthma exposure may affect the developmental trajectory of memory, Ghetti noted. 

“Recommendations to clinicians are premature because we need a better understanding of the boundary conditions, such as the minimal level of asthma exposure that might generate memory difficulties,” said Ghetti.

“Nevertheless, our results underscore the importance of looking at asthma as a potential source of cognitive difficulty in children,” she said.

 

Asthma’s Extensive Effect

Evidence is mounting that a diagnosis of asthma may have implications outside the pulmonary system, Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief of the Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care at UT Health, San Antonio, said in an interview. 

“Asthmatics may be at risk of nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic conditions, but there is emerging of evidence inflammation associated with asthma may affect other organ systems,” said Maselli, who was not involved in the study.

“For example, chronic inflammation in asthmatics may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Although less is known about the effects of asthma on the nervous system, animal models suggest that inflammation associated with asthma may result in neuronal injury and potential effects on memory, said Maselli.

The findings of this study provide evidence of potential detrimental effects on the memory of children with asthma but should be interpreted with caution, Maselli said. “Children with chronic medical conditions may have an inherent disadvantage compared with their peers due to the burden of their disease, medication utilization and side effects, absenteeism from school, physical limitations, and other disease-specific circumstances,” he noted.

“Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, has strong links to low socioeconomic factors that are closely tied to access to adequate medical care, nutrition, educational institutions, and other relevant contributors to normal cognitive development,” Maselli said. Although the authors account for some of these socioeconomic factors by evaluating income and race, other variables may have influenced the results, he added.

Overall, this study’s findings suggested that the diagnosis of asthma in children may be associated with memory deficits and may influence neurodevelopment; however, more research is needed to determine whether the findings are replicated in other cohorts, said Maselli. “In particular, evaluating the effects of the severity of asthma and different asthma endotypes would be crucial to identify children with a higher risk of memory or cognitive deficits and confirm these associations,” he said.

This study was funded by the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, and by a Learning, Memory, and Plasticity Training Program Fellowship grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Maselli had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few items bring back unpleasant memories of COVID-19, such as masks. However, they are among the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). If everyone had worn them correctly, the transmission could have been reduced as much as ninefold, according to a theoretical study published in Physical Review E by Richard P. Sear, PhD, from the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Study Overcomes Limitations

This study aimed to address the limitations of epidemiological investigations of masks, which can be complex and error-prone. Sear used data obtained from the UK’s COVID-19 app, totaling 7 million contacts, to create a mathematical model of virus transmission, focusing on the correlation between contact duration and infection. The model estimates that if all UK residents had worn masks during every potential exposure, virus transmission would have been approximately nine times lower.

Although this is a mathematical model, it adds to the growing evidence that supports the benefits of masks. Masks are among the best strategies for treating SARS-CoV-2. This conclusion has been supported by several systematic reviews and additional statistical studies. Conversely, the decision to relax and eliminate mask regulations has had consequences that have received little attention.

As expected, removing the mask mandate leads to increased virus transmission, resulting in more hospitalizations and deaths. A 2024 study estimated that in Japan, where cultural factors lead to much higher mask use in public than in Europe, the decline in mask use from 97% of the population in 2022 to 63% in October 2023 may have caused an additional 3500 deaths.

 

Impact Beyond SARS-CoV-2

One remarkable effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic was the probable extinction of an entire influenza strain (B/Yamagata), which could improve future influenza vaccines and significantly reduce the spread of respiratory syncytial virus. While this was not solely caused by masks, it was also influenced by emergency measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These behavioral changes can positively alter the landscape of infectious diseases.

Masks play a role in reducing influenza transmission during pandemics. Their effectiveness has been supported by several studies and systematic reviews on a wide range of respiratory viruses. A randomized clinical trial involving 4647 Norwegian participants from February to April 2023, published in May 2024 by the British Medical Journal, suggested that wearing a mask reduces the incidence of respiratory symptoms. Specifically, 8.9% of those who wore masks reported respiratory symptoms during the study period compared with 12.2% of those who did not, representing a relative risk reduction of 27%.

Widespread mask use could also protect against other factors such as fine particulate matter, indirectly reducing the risk for various health conditions. A retrospective study involving 7.8 million residents in the Chinese city of Weifang, published in December 2024 by BMC Public Health, suggested that mask use during the pandemic may have also protected the population from pollution, reducing the number of stroke cases by 38.6% over 33 months of follow-up.

Although there are still voices in bioethics calling for the reintroduction of mask mandates in public places, it is unlikely that, barring emergencies, mask mandates are politically and socially acceptable today. Mask use is also considered a politically polarizing topic in several Western countries. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, as we move away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can more objectively promote the use of masks in public places.

Communicating the importance of public health initiatives and persuading people to support them is a well-known challenge. However, scientific literature offers valuable insights. These include encouraging people to rely on rational thinking rather than emotions and providing information on how masks protect those around them. The fact that East Asian cultures tend to have a more positive relationship with the use of masks shows that, in principle, it is possible to make them acceptable. Data from studies suggest that, as we prepare for potential future pandemics, it may be time to move past polarization and reintroduce masks — not as a universal mandate but as an individual choice for many.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few items bring back unpleasant memories of COVID-19, such as masks. However, they are among the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). If everyone had worn them correctly, the transmission could have been reduced as much as ninefold, according to a theoretical study published in Physical Review E by Richard P. Sear, PhD, from the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Study Overcomes Limitations

This study aimed to address the limitations of epidemiological investigations of masks, which can be complex and error-prone. Sear used data obtained from the UK’s COVID-19 app, totaling 7 million contacts, to create a mathematical model of virus transmission, focusing on the correlation between contact duration and infection. The model estimates that if all UK residents had worn masks during every potential exposure, virus transmission would have been approximately nine times lower.

Although this is a mathematical model, it adds to the growing evidence that supports the benefits of masks. Masks are among the best strategies for treating SARS-CoV-2. This conclusion has been supported by several systematic reviews and additional statistical studies. Conversely, the decision to relax and eliminate mask regulations has had consequences that have received little attention.

As expected, removing the mask mandate leads to increased virus transmission, resulting in more hospitalizations and deaths. A 2024 study estimated that in Japan, where cultural factors lead to much higher mask use in public than in Europe, the decline in mask use from 97% of the population in 2022 to 63% in October 2023 may have caused an additional 3500 deaths.

 

Impact Beyond SARS-CoV-2

One remarkable effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic was the probable extinction of an entire influenza strain (B/Yamagata), which could improve future influenza vaccines and significantly reduce the spread of respiratory syncytial virus. While this was not solely caused by masks, it was also influenced by emergency measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These behavioral changes can positively alter the landscape of infectious diseases.

Masks play a role in reducing influenza transmission during pandemics. Their effectiveness has been supported by several studies and systematic reviews on a wide range of respiratory viruses. A randomized clinical trial involving 4647 Norwegian participants from February to April 2023, published in May 2024 by the British Medical Journal, suggested that wearing a mask reduces the incidence of respiratory symptoms. Specifically, 8.9% of those who wore masks reported respiratory symptoms during the study period compared with 12.2% of those who did not, representing a relative risk reduction of 27%.

Widespread mask use could also protect against other factors such as fine particulate matter, indirectly reducing the risk for various health conditions. A retrospective study involving 7.8 million residents in the Chinese city of Weifang, published in December 2024 by BMC Public Health, suggested that mask use during the pandemic may have also protected the population from pollution, reducing the number of stroke cases by 38.6% over 33 months of follow-up.

Although there are still voices in bioethics calling for the reintroduction of mask mandates in public places, it is unlikely that, barring emergencies, mask mandates are politically and socially acceptable today. Mask use is also considered a politically polarizing topic in several Western countries. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, as we move away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can more objectively promote the use of masks in public places.

Communicating the importance of public health initiatives and persuading people to support them is a well-known challenge. However, scientific literature offers valuable insights. These include encouraging people to rely on rational thinking rather than emotions and providing information on how masks protect those around them. The fact that East Asian cultures tend to have a more positive relationship with the use of masks shows that, in principle, it is possible to make them acceptable. Data from studies suggest that, as we prepare for potential future pandemics, it may be time to move past polarization and reintroduce masks — not as a universal mandate but as an individual choice for many.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few items bring back unpleasant memories of COVID-19, such as masks. However, they are among the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). If everyone had worn them correctly, the transmission could have been reduced as much as ninefold, according to a theoretical study published in Physical Review E by Richard P. Sear, PhD, from the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Study Overcomes Limitations

This study aimed to address the limitations of epidemiological investigations of masks, which can be complex and error-prone. Sear used data obtained from the UK’s COVID-19 app, totaling 7 million contacts, to create a mathematical model of virus transmission, focusing on the correlation between contact duration and infection. The model estimates that if all UK residents had worn masks during every potential exposure, virus transmission would have been approximately nine times lower.

Although this is a mathematical model, it adds to the growing evidence that supports the benefits of masks. Masks are among the best strategies for treating SARS-CoV-2. This conclusion has been supported by several systematic reviews and additional statistical studies. Conversely, the decision to relax and eliminate mask regulations has had consequences that have received little attention.

As expected, removing the mask mandate leads to increased virus transmission, resulting in more hospitalizations and deaths. A 2024 study estimated that in Japan, where cultural factors lead to much higher mask use in public than in Europe, the decline in mask use from 97% of the population in 2022 to 63% in October 2023 may have caused an additional 3500 deaths.

 

Impact Beyond SARS-CoV-2

One remarkable effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic was the probable extinction of an entire influenza strain (B/Yamagata), which could improve future influenza vaccines and significantly reduce the spread of respiratory syncytial virus. While this was not solely caused by masks, it was also influenced by emergency measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These behavioral changes can positively alter the landscape of infectious diseases.

Masks play a role in reducing influenza transmission during pandemics. Their effectiveness has been supported by several studies and systematic reviews on a wide range of respiratory viruses. A randomized clinical trial involving 4647 Norwegian participants from February to April 2023, published in May 2024 by the British Medical Journal, suggested that wearing a mask reduces the incidence of respiratory symptoms. Specifically, 8.9% of those who wore masks reported respiratory symptoms during the study period compared with 12.2% of those who did not, representing a relative risk reduction of 27%.

Widespread mask use could also protect against other factors such as fine particulate matter, indirectly reducing the risk for various health conditions. A retrospective study involving 7.8 million residents in the Chinese city of Weifang, published in December 2024 by BMC Public Health, suggested that mask use during the pandemic may have also protected the population from pollution, reducing the number of stroke cases by 38.6% over 33 months of follow-up.

Although there are still voices in bioethics calling for the reintroduction of mask mandates in public places, it is unlikely that, barring emergencies, mask mandates are politically and socially acceptable today. Mask use is also considered a politically polarizing topic in several Western countries. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, as we move away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can more objectively promote the use of masks in public places.

Communicating the importance of public health initiatives and persuading people to support them is a well-known challenge. However, scientific literature offers valuable insights. These include encouraging people to rely on rational thinking rather than emotions and providing information on how masks protect those around them. The fact that East Asian cultures tend to have a more positive relationship with the use of masks shows that, in principle, it is possible to make them acceptable. Data from studies suggest that, as we prepare for potential future pandemics, it may be time to move past polarization and reintroduce masks — not as a universal mandate but as an individual choice for many.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
• They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
• CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
• CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
• Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
• Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
• Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
• They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
• CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
• CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
• Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
• Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
• Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
• They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
• CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
• CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
• Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
• Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
• Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost 70 years after the discovery of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), vaccines and preventive treatments are giving babies a chance to beat the potentially deadly childhood infection.

As doctors turn to monoclonal antibody therapies and governments plan vaccination programs, clinical researchers are asking whether these measures will reduce the spread of the virus. Will fewer babies die from RSV, and fewer children develop permanent wheezing?

Recent studies offer clues.

Fabio Midulla, an associate professor of pediatrics at Sapienza University of Rome in Rome, Italy, said that the pharmaceutical industry is poised to push governments to use vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for even more children. “Such a push might work,” he said at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress, “given that several studies have already demonstrated that their use can improve outcomes for children who do become infected and reduce societal costs by reducing hospitalizations.”

But Mariëlle WH Pijnenburg, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, said at the Congress that greater rollout would require governments to force industry to lower prices. If treatments remain beyond the reach of lower-income countries — where the burden of RSV is the greatest — the death toll from this common childhood infection will remain stubbornly high, and the prospect of global elimination will remain forever out of reach, she said.

New Tools in the Fight Against RSV

Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody given to newborns to prevent severe infection, was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in October 2022 and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July 2023. And Abrysvo, a vaccine given to older adults and pregnant women to stop them from passing the virus to babies from birth through 6 months of age, was approved by the FDA and the EMA in 2023.

RSV is responsible for over 33 million lung infections in children younger than 5 years annually, with more than 4 million hospitalizations and nearly 200,000 deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every year, 2.1 million children younger than 5 years old visit a healthcare provider because of an RSV infection and between 58,000 and 80,000 children younger than 5 years old are hospitalized in the United States. The burden of severe RSV disease is also high among adults, with an estimated 123,000-193,000 hospitalizations, 24,400-34,900 ICU admissions, and 4680-8620 in-hospital deaths occurring annually among US adults.

While the virus affects all age groups, it is particularly severe in infants, swelling their airways and causing them to struggle for breath. Infection in infancy can lead to later complications, such as the development of wheezing, a condition that causes breathlessness and a feeling of tightening in the chest, and possibly also asthma.

Studies have shown that children and preterm infants infected with RSV who were given monoclonal antibodies experienced less post-infection wheezing, suggesting that RSV prophylaxis could prevent the development of wheezing bronchitis.

A study conducted in Galicia, Spain, showed that only 0.3% of infants who received prophylaxis with Nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infections. “This is very promising,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology and population health at Stanford University in Stanford, California, told Medscape Medical News. “But this virus is ubiquitous. It’s found everywhere. It comes around every winter season. And immunity is not long-lasting.”

Older children who are not receiving monoclonal antibodies still experience RSV-related hospitalizations, suggesting the virus continues to circulate at high enough levels in the community. “The vaccine and monoclonal antibodies can reduce the risk of hospitalization and more severe disease in young kids, but they won’t eliminate the virus,” Maldonado said. “Right now, the goal is to prevent serious infection, not to prevent the spread of the virus completely.”

Expanding Access to RSV Prevention in Low-Income Countries

Currently, the RSV vaccine and monoclonal antibodies are only given in the United States, Europe, United Kingdom, and Canada to newborns, children at risk for severe disease, and pregnant women. However, Midulla said that pharmaceutical companies are pushing to broaden the rollout to a broader population within these countries. Yet, he said, over 99% of RSV infection–related deaths occur in the Global South.

No pharmaceutical company has sought approval in low-income countries such as those in Africa. “Unless they see there being a market in a country, they’re not going to go through the onerous process of getting [a vaccine] licensed,” Shabir Madhi, dean of the faculty of health sciences and a professor of vaccinology at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told Medscape Medical News.

He highlighted that almost 50% of RSV-related deaths occur in African children younger than 5 years, despite these children comprising just one fifth of the global under-5 population. The high burden of RSV mortality in the Global South is mainly due to poor access to healthcare and supportive treatments, such as supplemental oxygen, which can help children recover from severe RSV infection.

Companies are unlikely to pursue regulatory approval and licensing in low- and middle-income countries until GAVI, the global vaccine alliance, commits to procuring and funding the vaccines for these regions. GAVI’s decision would provide the necessary market incentive for manufacturers to seek approval.

Madhi suggested that GAVI’s decision on RSV vaccine procurement is imminent, likely early next year, following the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization recommendation to vaccinate all pregnant women with the RSV vaccine, regardless of whether they are in high-income or low-income countries.

Nevertheless, even if vaccines become available, many African countries may still struggle to afford them. Madhi said that these countries would likely depend on GAVI and organizations like UNICEF to procure the vaccines at affordable prices. “The unfortunate reality is that many countries — especially in Africa — still wouldn’t be able to afford it, even if the vaccine cost as little as $5,” said Madhi. “But that’s where they would have the greatest impact.”

Midulla, Pijnenburg reported no relevant financial relationships. Madhi’s research unit, the Vaccines and Infectious Disease Analytics Unit, was involved in the clinical trials for the Pfizer RSV vaccine, the GSK RSV vaccine (which was terminated), as well as the MEDLEY trial of palivizumab. All funding for these studies went to his institution, the University of the Witwatersrand. Maldonado was Stanford principal investigator for the Pfizer RSV vaccine.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost 70 years after the discovery of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), vaccines and preventive treatments are giving babies a chance to beat the potentially deadly childhood infection.

As doctors turn to monoclonal antibody therapies and governments plan vaccination programs, clinical researchers are asking whether these measures will reduce the spread of the virus. Will fewer babies die from RSV, and fewer children develop permanent wheezing?

Recent studies offer clues.

Fabio Midulla, an associate professor of pediatrics at Sapienza University of Rome in Rome, Italy, said that the pharmaceutical industry is poised to push governments to use vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for even more children. “Such a push might work,” he said at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress, “given that several studies have already demonstrated that their use can improve outcomes for children who do become infected and reduce societal costs by reducing hospitalizations.”

But Mariëlle WH Pijnenburg, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, said at the Congress that greater rollout would require governments to force industry to lower prices. If treatments remain beyond the reach of lower-income countries — where the burden of RSV is the greatest — the death toll from this common childhood infection will remain stubbornly high, and the prospect of global elimination will remain forever out of reach, she said.

New Tools in the Fight Against RSV

Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody given to newborns to prevent severe infection, was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in October 2022 and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July 2023. And Abrysvo, a vaccine given to older adults and pregnant women to stop them from passing the virus to babies from birth through 6 months of age, was approved by the FDA and the EMA in 2023.

RSV is responsible for over 33 million lung infections in children younger than 5 years annually, with more than 4 million hospitalizations and nearly 200,000 deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every year, 2.1 million children younger than 5 years old visit a healthcare provider because of an RSV infection and between 58,000 and 80,000 children younger than 5 years old are hospitalized in the United States. The burden of severe RSV disease is also high among adults, with an estimated 123,000-193,000 hospitalizations, 24,400-34,900 ICU admissions, and 4680-8620 in-hospital deaths occurring annually among US adults.

While the virus affects all age groups, it is particularly severe in infants, swelling their airways and causing them to struggle for breath. Infection in infancy can lead to later complications, such as the development of wheezing, a condition that causes breathlessness and a feeling of tightening in the chest, and possibly also asthma.

Studies have shown that children and preterm infants infected with RSV who were given monoclonal antibodies experienced less post-infection wheezing, suggesting that RSV prophylaxis could prevent the development of wheezing bronchitis.

A study conducted in Galicia, Spain, showed that only 0.3% of infants who received prophylaxis with Nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infections. “This is very promising,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology and population health at Stanford University in Stanford, California, told Medscape Medical News. “But this virus is ubiquitous. It’s found everywhere. It comes around every winter season. And immunity is not long-lasting.”

Older children who are not receiving monoclonal antibodies still experience RSV-related hospitalizations, suggesting the virus continues to circulate at high enough levels in the community. “The vaccine and monoclonal antibodies can reduce the risk of hospitalization and more severe disease in young kids, but they won’t eliminate the virus,” Maldonado said. “Right now, the goal is to prevent serious infection, not to prevent the spread of the virus completely.”

Expanding Access to RSV Prevention in Low-Income Countries

Currently, the RSV vaccine and monoclonal antibodies are only given in the United States, Europe, United Kingdom, and Canada to newborns, children at risk for severe disease, and pregnant women. However, Midulla said that pharmaceutical companies are pushing to broaden the rollout to a broader population within these countries. Yet, he said, over 99% of RSV infection–related deaths occur in the Global South.

No pharmaceutical company has sought approval in low-income countries such as those in Africa. “Unless they see there being a market in a country, they’re not going to go through the onerous process of getting [a vaccine] licensed,” Shabir Madhi, dean of the faculty of health sciences and a professor of vaccinology at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told Medscape Medical News.

He highlighted that almost 50% of RSV-related deaths occur in African children younger than 5 years, despite these children comprising just one fifth of the global under-5 population. The high burden of RSV mortality in the Global South is mainly due to poor access to healthcare and supportive treatments, such as supplemental oxygen, which can help children recover from severe RSV infection.

Companies are unlikely to pursue regulatory approval and licensing in low- and middle-income countries until GAVI, the global vaccine alliance, commits to procuring and funding the vaccines for these regions. GAVI’s decision would provide the necessary market incentive for manufacturers to seek approval.

Madhi suggested that GAVI’s decision on RSV vaccine procurement is imminent, likely early next year, following the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization recommendation to vaccinate all pregnant women with the RSV vaccine, regardless of whether they are in high-income or low-income countries.

Nevertheless, even if vaccines become available, many African countries may still struggle to afford them. Madhi said that these countries would likely depend on GAVI and organizations like UNICEF to procure the vaccines at affordable prices. “The unfortunate reality is that many countries — especially in Africa — still wouldn’t be able to afford it, even if the vaccine cost as little as $5,” said Madhi. “But that’s where they would have the greatest impact.”

Midulla, Pijnenburg reported no relevant financial relationships. Madhi’s research unit, the Vaccines and Infectious Disease Analytics Unit, was involved in the clinical trials for the Pfizer RSV vaccine, the GSK RSV vaccine (which was terminated), as well as the MEDLEY trial of palivizumab. All funding for these studies went to his institution, the University of the Witwatersrand. Maldonado was Stanford principal investigator for the Pfizer RSV vaccine.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost 70 years after the discovery of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), vaccines and preventive treatments are giving babies a chance to beat the potentially deadly childhood infection.

As doctors turn to monoclonal antibody therapies and governments plan vaccination programs, clinical researchers are asking whether these measures will reduce the spread of the virus. Will fewer babies die from RSV, and fewer children develop permanent wheezing?

Recent studies offer clues.

Fabio Midulla, an associate professor of pediatrics at Sapienza University of Rome in Rome, Italy, said that the pharmaceutical industry is poised to push governments to use vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for even more children. “Such a push might work,” he said at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress, “given that several studies have already demonstrated that their use can improve outcomes for children who do become infected and reduce societal costs by reducing hospitalizations.”

But Mariëlle WH Pijnenburg, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, said at the Congress that greater rollout would require governments to force industry to lower prices. If treatments remain beyond the reach of lower-income countries — where the burden of RSV is the greatest — the death toll from this common childhood infection will remain stubbornly high, and the prospect of global elimination will remain forever out of reach, she said.

New Tools in the Fight Against RSV

Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody given to newborns to prevent severe infection, was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in October 2022 and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July 2023. And Abrysvo, a vaccine given to older adults and pregnant women to stop them from passing the virus to babies from birth through 6 months of age, was approved by the FDA and the EMA in 2023.

RSV is responsible for over 33 million lung infections in children younger than 5 years annually, with more than 4 million hospitalizations and nearly 200,000 deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every year, 2.1 million children younger than 5 years old visit a healthcare provider because of an RSV infection and between 58,000 and 80,000 children younger than 5 years old are hospitalized in the United States. The burden of severe RSV disease is also high among adults, with an estimated 123,000-193,000 hospitalizations, 24,400-34,900 ICU admissions, and 4680-8620 in-hospital deaths occurring annually among US adults.

While the virus affects all age groups, it is particularly severe in infants, swelling their airways and causing them to struggle for breath. Infection in infancy can lead to later complications, such as the development of wheezing, a condition that causes breathlessness and a feeling of tightening in the chest, and possibly also asthma.

Studies have shown that children and preterm infants infected with RSV who were given monoclonal antibodies experienced less post-infection wheezing, suggesting that RSV prophylaxis could prevent the development of wheezing bronchitis.

A study conducted in Galicia, Spain, showed that only 0.3% of infants who received prophylaxis with Nirsevimab were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infections. “This is very promising,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology and population health at Stanford University in Stanford, California, told Medscape Medical News. “But this virus is ubiquitous. It’s found everywhere. It comes around every winter season. And immunity is not long-lasting.”

Older children who are not receiving monoclonal antibodies still experience RSV-related hospitalizations, suggesting the virus continues to circulate at high enough levels in the community. “The vaccine and monoclonal antibodies can reduce the risk of hospitalization and more severe disease in young kids, but they won’t eliminate the virus,” Maldonado said. “Right now, the goal is to prevent serious infection, not to prevent the spread of the virus completely.”

Expanding Access to RSV Prevention in Low-Income Countries

Currently, the RSV vaccine and monoclonal antibodies are only given in the United States, Europe, United Kingdom, and Canada to newborns, children at risk for severe disease, and pregnant women. However, Midulla said that pharmaceutical companies are pushing to broaden the rollout to a broader population within these countries. Yet, he said, over 99% of RSV infection–related deaths occur in the Global South.

No pharmaceutical company has sought approval in low-income countries such as those in Africa. “Unless they see there being a market in a country, they’re not going to go through the onerous process of getting [a vaccine] licensed,” Shabir Madhi, dean of the faculty of health sciences and a professor of vaccinology at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told Medscape Medical News.

He highlighted that almost 50% of RSV-related deaths occur in African children younger than 5 years, despite these children comprising just one fifth of the global under-5 population. The high burden of RSV mortality in the Global South is mainly due to poor access to healthcare and supportive treatments, such as supplemental oxygen, which can help children recover from severe RSV infection.

Companies are unlikely to pursue regulatory approval and licensing in low- and middle-income countries until GAVI, the global vaccine alliance, commits to procuring and funding the vaccines for these regions. GAVI’s decision would provide the necessary market incentive for manufacturers to seek approval.

Madhi suggested that GAVI’s decision on RSV vaccine procurement is imminent, likely early next year, following the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization recommendation to vaccinate all pregnant women with the RSV vaccine, regardless of whether they are in high-income or low-income countries.

Nevertheless, even if vaccines become available, many African countries may still struggle to afford them. Madhi said that these countries would likely depend on GAVI and organizations like UNICEF to procure the vaccines at affordable prices. “The unfortunate reality is that many countries — especially in Africa — still wouldn’t be able to afford it, even if the vaccine cost as little as $5,” said Madhi. “But that’s where they would have the greatest impact.”

Midulla, Pijnenburg reported no relevant financial relationships. Madhi’s research unit, the Vaccines and Infectious Disease Analytics Unit, was involved in the clinical trials for the Pfizer RSV vaccine, the GSK RSV vaccine (which was terminated), as well as the MEDLEY trial of palivizumab. All funding for these studies went to his institution, the University of the Witwatersrand. Maldonado was Stanford principal investigator for the Pfizer RSV vaccine.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypermucoviscous Klebsiella pneumoniae (hmKp) strains demonstrate a significantly lower prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production and slightly lower carbapenem resistance than non-hmKp strains, according to a recent meta-analysis of 2049 clinical isolates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of ESBL-producing strains and carbapenem-resistant strains among the hmKp and non-hmKp clinical isolates.
• They included 15 studies published between 2014 and 2023, with 2049 clinical isolates of K pneumoniae identified using a string test to distinguish hypermucoviscous from non-hypermucoviscous strains.
• These studies spanned across four continents: Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant strains, determined through antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

TAKEAWAY:

• The hmKp strains were associated with a significantly lower prevalence of ESBL-producing strains than non-hmKp strains (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.26; P = .003).
• Similarly, hmKp strains were associated with a slightly lower prevalence of carbapenem-resistant strains than non-hmKp strains (pooled OR, 0.63; P = .038).

IN PRACTICE:

“Therapeutic options for CRKP [carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae] infections are extremely limited due to the scarcity of effective antibacterial drugs. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the risks posed by CRKP strains when administering treatment to patients with hmKp infections and a history of the aforementioned risk factors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hiroki Namikawa, Department of Medical Education and General Practice, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Emerging Microbes & Infections.

LIMITATIONS:

Only three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) were searched for identifying studies, potentially missing relevant studies from other sources. Furthermore, only articles published in English were included, which may have restricted the scope of analysis. Additionally, geographical distribution was predominantly limited to Asia, limiting the global applicability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were mentioned, and no conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypermucoviscous Klebsiella pneumoniae (hmKp) strains demonstrate a significantly lower prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production and slightly lower carbapenem resistance than non-hmKp strains, according to a recent meta-analysis of 2049 clinical isolates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of ESBL-producing strains and carbapenem-resistant strains among the hmKp and non-hmKp clinical isolates.
• They included 15 studies published between 2014 and 2023, with 2049 clinical isolates of K pneumoniae identified using a string test to distinguish hypermucoviscous from non-hypermucoviscous strains.
• These studies spanned across four continents: Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant strains, determined through antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

TAKEAWAY:

• The hmKp strains were associated with a significantly lower prevalence of ESBL-producing strains than non-hmKp strains (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.26; P = .003).
• Similarly, hmKp strains were associated with a slightly lower prevalence of carbapenem-resistant strains than non-hmKp strains (pooled OR, 0.63; P = .038).

IN PRACTICE:

“Therapeutic options for CRKP [carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae] infections are extremely limited due to the scarcity of effective antibacterial drugs. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the risks posed by CRKP strains when administering treatment to patients with hmKp infections and a history of the aforementioned risk factors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hiroki Namikawa, Department of Medical Education and General Practice, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Emerging Microbes & Infections.

LIMITATIONS:

Only three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) were searched for identifying studies, potentially missing relevant studies from other sources. Furthermore, only articles published in English were included, which may have restricted the scope of analysis. Additionally, geographical distribution was predominantly limited to Asia, limiting the global applicability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were mentioned, and no conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypermucoviscous Klebsiella pneumoniae (hmKp) strains demonstrate a significantly lower prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production and slightly lower carbapenem resistance than non-hmKp strains, according to a recent meta-analysis of 2049 clinical isolates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of ESBL-producing strains and carbapenem-resistant strains among the hmKp and non-hmKp clinical isolates.
• They included 15 studies published between 2014 and 2023, with 2049 clinical isolates of K pneumoniae identified using a string test to distinguish hypermucoviscous from non-hypermucoviscous strains.
• These studies spanned across four continents: Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.
• The primary outcome was the prevalence of ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant strains, determined through antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

TAKEAWAY:

• The hmKp strains were associated with a significantly lower prevalence of ESBL-producing strains than non-hmKp strains (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.26; P = .003).
• Similarly, hmKp strains were associated with a slightly lower prevalence of carbapenem-resistant strains than non-hmKp strains (pooled OR, 0.63; P = .038).

IN PRACTICE:

“Therapeutic options for CRKP [carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae] infections are extremely limited due to the scarcity of effective antibacterial drugs. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the risks posed by CRKP strains when administering treatment to patients with hmKp infections and a history of the aforementioned risk factors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Hiroki Namikawa, Department of Medical Education and General Practice, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Japan. It was published online on December 16, 2024, in Emerging Microbes & Infections.

LIMITATIONS:

Only three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) were searched for identifying studies, potentially missing relevant studies from other sources. Furthermore, only articles published in English were included, which may have restricted the scope of analysis. Additionally, geographical distribution was predominantly limited to Asia, limiting the global applicability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were mentioned, and no conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.

The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release. The Louisiana Department of Health has found no additional H5H1 cases in the state and no evidence of person-to-person transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.

The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.

In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.

The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.

The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.

Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.

Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.

 

A Clinician’s Take

“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said. 

Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder. 

“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.

Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder. 

In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said. 

There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized. 

More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said. 

Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.

The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release. The Louisiana Department of Health has found no additional H5H1 cases in the state and no evidence of person-to-person transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.

The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.

In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.

The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.

The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.

Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.

Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.

 

A Clinician’s Take

“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said. 

Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder. 

“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.

Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder. 

In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said. 

There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized. 

More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said. 

Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.

The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release. The Louisiana Department of Health has found no additional H5H1 cases in the state and no evidence of person-to-person transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.

The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.

In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.

The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.

The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.

Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.

Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.

 

A Clinician’s Take

“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said. 

Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder. 

“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.

Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder. 

In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said. 

There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized. 

More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said. 

Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a multinational phase 3 trial, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), with a comparable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multinational phase 3 trial, conducted between September 2018 and July 2022, compared imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam with piperacillin-tazobactam for HABP and VABP to support its use across multiple countries.
• Overall, 270 patients with HABP or VABP (mean age, 57.6 years; 73.3% men) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 hours over 30 minutes for 7-14 days.
• Both treatment groups included critically ill patients, with 54.5% and 55.1% of patients in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively, having an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 15.
• The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical and microbiological responses, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (adjusted difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, −1.5-12.4; P = .024 for noninferiority).
• At the end of treatment, the rates of a favorable clinical response were comparable between the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (71.6%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (68.4%) groups.
• After treatment, microbiological response rates were 48.8% in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam group, whereas the rates were 47.9% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
• The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar across the treatment groups, with diarrhea, increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and abnormal hepatic function being the most common events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the use of IMI/REL [imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam] in MDR [multidrug-resistant] infections globally, including to expand the range of available treatments for critically ill patients with HABP/VABP in China, and provide additional data to inform the World Health Organization’s MDR pathogen strategy,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Junjie Li, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with immunosuppression and those on intermittent hemodialysis, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Some authors served as employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, New Jersey, and MSD, China.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a multinational phase 3 trial, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), with a comparable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multinational phase 3 trial, conducted between September 2018 and July 2022, compared imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam with piperacillin-tazobactam for HABP and VABP to support its use across multiple countries.
• Overall, 270 patients with HABP or VABP (mean age, 57.6 years; 73.3% men) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 hours over 30 minutes for 7-14 days.
• Both treatment groups included critically ill patients, with 54.5% and 55.1% of patients in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively, having an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 15.
• The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical and microbiological responses, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (adjusted difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, −1.5-12.4; P = .024 for noninferiority).
• At the end of treatment, the rates of a favorable clinical response were comparable between the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (71.6%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (68.4%) groups.
• After treatment, microbiological response rates were 48.8% in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam group, whereas the rates were 47.9% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
• The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar across the treatment groups, with diarrhea, increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and abnormal hepatic function being the most common events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the use of IMI/REL [imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam] in MDR [multidrug-resistant] infections globally, including to expand the range of available treatments for critically ill patients with HABP/VABP in China, and provide additional data to inform the World Health Organization’s MDR pathogen strategy,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Junjie Li, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with immunosuppression and those on intermittent hemodialysis, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Some authors served as employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, New Jersey, and MSD, China.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a multinational phase 3 trial, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), with a comparable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multinational phase 3 trial, conducted between September 2018 and July 2022, compared imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam with piperacillin-tazobactam for HABP and VABP to support its use across multiple countries.
• Overall, 270 patients with HABP or VABP (mean age, 57.6 years; 73.3% men) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 hours over 30 minutes for 7-14 days.
• Both treatment groups included critically ill patients, with 54.5% and 55.1% of patients in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively, having an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 15.
• The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical and microbiological responses, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (adjusted difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, −1.5-12.4; P = .024 for noninferiority).
• At the end of treatment, the rates of a favorable clinical response were comparable between the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (71.6%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (68.4%) groups.
• After treatment, microbiological response rates were 48.8% in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam group, whereas the rates were 47.9% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
• The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar across the treatment groups, with diarrhea, increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and abnormal hepatic function being the most common events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the use of IMI/REL [imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam] in MDR [multidrug-resistant] infections globally, including to expand the range of available treatments for critically ill patients with HABP/VABP in China, and provide additional data to inform the World Health Organization’s MDR pathogen strategy,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Junjie Li, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with immunosuppression and those on intermittent hemodialysis, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Some authors served as employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, New Jersey, and MSD, China.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The US government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The US Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature. Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms. In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2%-5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the US have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to COVID. “The US knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the US health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root. “This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real-fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

 

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in US dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

 

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous. “I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the US dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If 3 months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, COVID showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

 

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pink eye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of COVID. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal government–minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of COVID, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’ ”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the United States without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about COVID symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

 

Not ‘Immaculate Conception’

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by COVID in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first COVID shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

 

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The US government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The US Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature. Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms. In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2%-5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the US have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to COVID. “The US knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the US health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root. “This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real-fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

 

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in US dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

 

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous. “I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the US dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If 3 months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, COVID showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

 

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pink eye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of COVID. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal government–minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of COVID, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’ ”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the United States without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about COVID symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

 

Not ‘Immaculate Conception’

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by COVID in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first COVID shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

 

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The US government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The US Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature. Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms. In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2%-5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the US have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to COVID. “The US knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the US health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root. “This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real-fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

 

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in US dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

 

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous. “I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the US dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If 3 months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, COVID showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

 

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pink eye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of COVID. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal government–minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of COVID, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’ ”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the United States without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about COVID symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

 

Not ‘Immaculate Conception’

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by COVID in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first COVID shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.