We don’t see a lot about COVID-19 within the mainstream media nowadays. Persons are uninterested in interested by it, and the oldsters who generate content material for the mainstream media are uninterested in writing about it. Greater than drained, I’d say. Fed up is extra prefer it. However a fast take a look at the info is fascinating.
At current, the prevalence of COVID is diminishing. Through the week ending August 31, 2.3% of emergency division visits reported optimistic COVID assessments. This was a giant drop from the ten.2% of ED visits that reported optimistic COVID assessments the earlier week. There was a serious enhance in ED visits resulting from COVID simply previously few months, from the low positivity fee of lower than 0.5% reported within the week ending Might ninth of this yr. For the reason that onset of the pandemic, there have been 139.8 million optimistic COVID-19 emergency division visits.
Total numbers of hospitalizations and deaths have additionally dropped considerably. Listed here are some COVID dying figures for comparability:
Week ending 09/14/2024 – 563 deaths resulting from COVID
Week ending 08/31/2024 – 663 deaths resulting from COVID
Week ending 05/18/2024 – 336 deaths resulting from COVID
Week ending 01/27/2024 – 2,131 deaths resulting from COVID
Week ending 01/17/2023 – 3,870 deaths resulting from COVID
Week ending 01/15/2022 – 19,078 deaths resulting from COVID
Week ending 01/19/2021 – 25,974 deaths resulting from COVID
Based on my calculator, the latest COVID dying fee is about 2.5% of what it was on the pandemic’s peak. It’s not over, but it surely actually is approach, approach down.
Within the US, there have been 111,820,092 confirmed circumstances of COVID, and 1,219,489 confirmed deaths. Over 95% of the US inhabitants has identifiable COVID antibodies, which reduces the influence by way of hospitalizations and deaths. In comparison with COVID in its peak interval, what we’re taking a look at now’s undoubtedly minor. The illness has its ups and downs, however the general trajectory is evident. Generally, COVID is diminishing as a severe risk.
The lengthy COVID story is considerably extra regarding. The CDC has taken its time in defining lengthy COVID. They’ve settled on three months because the time span that defines lengthy COVID – if signs persist three months or longer, the sickness qualifies as lengthy COVID. The prevalence of lengthy COVID in adults over the age of 18 declined very barely, from about 7.5% in June of 2022 to about 6% in the identical interval in 2023, and has not modified since 2023. These percentages will not be percentages of the final inhabitants, however of the inhabitants that was recognized with COVID – in different phrases, since 2023 about 6% of individuals initially recognized with COVID went on to develop lengthy COVID. Based on the CDC, the individuals most certainly to be affected by lengthy COVID are ladies, Hispanics, hospitalized people, individuals with underlying well being situations, and the unvaccinated. In adults reporting earlier episodes of COVID, the prevalence of lengthy COVID is way greater. It reached 18.9% again in 2022 and has not modified a lot since that point.
Simply a few months in the past, we had been reluctantly pressured to cross on the data that Paxlovid doesn’t do a lot to alleviate the signs of lengthy COVID.
The parade of variants continues. As of August 31, there have been 26 variants in circulation within the US. The variant at present inflicting essentially the most infections is designated as KP.3.1.1, which is related to 42.2% of COVID circumstances that come to the eye of the healthcare system and are topic to blood assessments. That is actually a small fraction of all of the COVID circumstances for the reason that starting of the pandemic, however that share is probably going an correct reflection of the present prevalence of that variant within the general inhabitants. All of those present variants are within the Omicron class.
Talking as Doc Gumshoe, I’m reluctant to stake a agency place on the present COVID outlook. Sure, hospitalizations and deaths are approach down, however every new variant appears to be extremely infective. Vaccines and former infections enhance mobile immunity and are efficient safety towards severe sickness, however will not be that protecting towards preliminary an infection. My spouse and I put on masks solely once we assume we have to. On the films or the theater we put on masks, additionally at any healthcare amenities we go to. Will this be the best way it’s for the remainder of the twenty first century? We actually hope not, but it surely’s exhausting to know.
Some however not all antidepressants could end in weight achieve
This was primarily based on a research that analyzed information from greater than 183,000 individuals between the ages of 20 and 80, with a mean age of 48 years. Most topics had been obese or overweight at the beginning of the research. Nearly all of the themes had been ladies. The researchers analyzed contributors’ digital well being information and physique mass index. They gauged weight achieve or loss at common intervals of six, twelve, and twenty-four months, after folks began taking antidepressants. (Petimar J. Medicine-induced Weight Change Throughout Widespread Antidepressant Therapies. Ann Intern Med 2024 Aug; 177(8);993-10030
In reference to this research Dr. Roy Perlis, affiliate chief of psychiatric analysis at Massachusetts Basic Hospital, identified that you will need to perceive that weight achieve is a key purpose that individuals would possibly cease taking antidepressants, even when the antidepressants are working properly, and likewise that some folks could also be reluctant to begin taking antidepressants even when they really feel depressed or anxious, as a result of they’re conscious that weight achieve is a probable facet impact and they’re extra involved about weight achieve than about their emotions of melancholy or nervousness.
The research particularly in contrast one antidepressant, sertraline (Zoloft, now marketed by Viatris, previously marketed by Upjohn and Pfizer) with a number of different antidepressants – escitalopram (Lexapro, from Forest), paroxetine (Paxil, from GlaxoSmithKline), duloxetin (Cymbalta, from Eli Lilly). citalopram (Celexa, additionally from Forest). fluoxetine (Prozac, additionally from Eli Lilly), venlaxafine (Effexor, from Pfizer), and bupropion (Wellbutrin, a drug with conflicting information regarding completely different generic variations, and whose manufacture and distribution entails many various corporations).
The most important weight positive aspects had been related to escitalopram and paroxetine. Every of those was linked with a 1.4 pound weight achieve at 6 months. For escitalopam, the load achieve rose to three.6 kilos at 24 months, and for paroxetine it reached 2.9 kilos at 24 months. Sertraline was related to a small weight achieve, simply 0.5 kilos, on the 6 month mark, however the weight achieve elevated to three.2 kilos on the 24 month marker. Citalopram, fluoxetine, and venlaxafine had been a lot in the identical vary as sertraline. The one drug that was related to any weight reduction in any respect was bupropion, simply 0.25 kilos at 6 months. However that development switched instructions at 24 months, when bupropion was related to a mean weight achieve of 1.2 kilos.
The research’s writer factors out that weight achieve and weight reduction will be related to melancholy itself. Some people can really drop pounds because of melancholy, which may make folks lose their urge for food. Maybe when folks begin taking an antidepressant, their urge for food improves, and so they regain the load that they had misplaced.
The research was observational, that means it can not show that antidepressants trigger weight modifications, solely that they had been linked with them. It wasn’t a randomized, managed trial and the contributors taking antidepressants weren’t in comparison with a management group not taking the medicines.
Additional limitations of the research had been identified by the authors. One was that solely about one third of the themes had been taking their prescribed antidepressant remedy simply six months after the research began, which makes it troublesome (if not inconceivable) to hyperlink later weight modifications with a particular drug. And, in fact, the research was not randomized, so the authors couldn’t inform if the variations within the weight outcomes had been due principally to the variations between the medicines or different variations between the research topics.
I’m in accord with the underlying precept of the research, specifically that the topic of weight achieve related to antidepressants is certainly necessary. Extra weight and weight problems is a big well being concern within the US and across the globe, and likewise, for a lot of individuals, weight management borders on an obsession. And large numbers of individuals take antidepressants. The CDC reported that in 2025 to 2018, 13.2% of American adults used antidepressants – about twice as many ladies (17.7%) as males (8.4%). And girls are reportedly extra involved about weight achieve than males. Thus, the topic that this research was addressing is of concern to an amazing many people.
However by way of outcomes that involved people would possibly act on, the research got here up moderately quick. The research seems to have been designed in such a approach as to give you a bonus for sertraline, however no such benefit emerged. The one antidepressant that demonstrated any weight reduction was bupropion, after which solely on the six-month interval.
It’s exhausting to say if there was any general conclusion rising from the research. I grant the authors’ good intentions. It could clearly be worthwhile to puzzle out which – if any – of the accessible antidepressants had no adversarial results in any respect by way of weight achieve. The research didn’t accomplish this, and it appears doubtless that assembly that specific goal is unrealistic. One of the best I can say is, “Good attempt!”
Ought to all individuals aged 70 or older take statins?
Regardless of acknowledged skepticism on whether or not statins do extra good than hurt, the consensus is that individuals over 40 who’ve any of a number of cardiovascular danger elements can cut back their danger of main adversarial cardiovascular occasions by taking statins. About 47 million people within the US take a each day statin tablet. It has been advised that way over these 47 million individuals are in reality at main coronary heart assault danger. Based on the CDC, 86 million People have elevated ldl cholesterol, and about 121 million have coronary heart illness. Based on cardiovascular practitioners, these people would all profit from statin remedy.
However now it’s being advised that each one people 70 years previous or older would profit from statins, no matter whether or not they had any particular cardiovascular danger elements.
This was primarily based on an observational research during which researchers analyzed information from the UK Biobank and Whitehall II research in additional than 20,000 adults 70 years and older with or with out earlier heart problems. This information was then utilized in a heart problems simulation mannequin to estimate their coronary heart illness danger, survival fee, quality-adjusted life years, and healthcare prices with and with out lifetime commonplace or greater depth statin remedy. (Mihaylova B, et al. Coronary heart 2024;0:1–10. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324052)
On evaluation, the researchers discovered that contributors who continued with commonplace statin therapy for his or her lifetime elevated their quality-adjusted life years by 0.24 – 0.70 years and people on higher-intensity statin remedy raised their quality-adjusted life years by one other 0.04 – 0.13 years.
The research’s lead writer, Borislava Mihaylova, DPhil, College of Oxford, mentioned “The results of statin remedy reported right here throughout folks 70 years of age and older are, as anticipated, a bit smaller however sizeable. These outcomes full the image of doubtless substantial well being advantages with statin remedy throughout the continuum of age and danger ranges within the inhabitants.”
A query inescapably arises: are these small will increase in life expectancy well worth the elevated dangers that accompany statin therapy? It seems to be to me that the utmost profit, on common, is a bit lower than one “quality-adjusted” yr of elevated life. Some people will get greater than that and a few will get much less.
However we’ve to think about the trade-off. The listing of doable statin negative effects is lengthy and regarding, viz: headache, nausea, dizziness, gastrointestinal bloating, diarrhea, constipation, muscle or joint ache, confusion, reminiscence loss, kidney harm, liver harm, muscle breakdown (rhabdomyolysis), elevated blood sugar and kind 2 diabetes.
Of those, rhabdomyolysis might be the one of many biggest concern. This situation impacts about 26,000 individuals within the US. It’s usually unusual, and unusual amongst individuals taking statins – about 1.5 in 100,000 statin customers develop rhabdomyolysis. This is able to account for fewer than a thousand of the rhabdomyolysis circumstances within the US. Typically, rhabdomyolysis is a results of overexertion or trauma and leads to a breakdown of muscle fiber. The poisonous elements of the muscle fiber can enter the circulation and trigger kidney harm.
By itself, the danger of rhabdomyolysis shouldn’t be sufficient to dissuade an individual from statin remedy if the center illness dangers had been important, specifically, elevated ldl cholesterol. Nevertheless, in an individual with no particular cardiovascular dangers, the advantages of statin remedy look doubtful. Talking for myself, I’m not the least disposed to begin statin remedy within the doubtful hope of gaining a small fraction of an extra yr of life.
In case you didn’t discover, the research inhabitants included each individuals with and with out recognized cardiovascular danger elements. Within the US, as I identified above, the variety of folks with elevated ldl cholesterol is sort of double the quantity at present taking statins. If the UK proportion is comparable, it’s doable (and even doubtless) that the statins conferred that profit solely to the research contributors who really had cardiovascular danger elements, and to not the themes with none danger elements. Why wouldn’t it be in any other case? Why would statins, which decrease cardiovascular danger by lowering ldl cholesterol transport, carry any profit to people whose levels of cholesterol had been regular? In any case, as we’ve a number of occasions identified in previous discussions, ldl cholesterol at regular ranges is an important physiologic issue. If ranges are within the regular vary, why would there be any profit in bringing these ranges decrease?
My skepticism extends not solely to the outcomes of the research, however to the motives of the research within the first place. Had been the authors searching for a purpose to prescribe statin remedy to an ever-increasing fraction of the inhabitants? The funding for the analysis got here from the UK Nationwide Institute of Care and Well being Analysis, so it wasn’t a pharmaceutical firm seeking to enhance gross sales of its statin.
I have to repeat what I mentioned at the start of this dialogue, that statin remedy offers very important advantages to individuals with coronary heart illness dangers. The research underneath dialogue was meant to find out whether or not statin remedy supplied related advantages to people who didn’t have these coronary heart illness dangers. In my view, this research didn’t accomplish that goal.
A notable AI accomplishment
AI can do many issues, together with issues associated to healthcare. AI can give you compounds that, primarily based on their configuration, have the potential to be employed as helpful medication. Whether or not AI can confirm the efficacy of those potential compounds, in really having helpful results when utilized in people, must be decided on a case-by-case foundation. There are estimated to be about 20 million natural compounds, any of which may be precious as medication. If AI might no less than determine the possibles out of this enormous group, it might be a serious step in the correct course
The NY Occasions not too long ago reported what I’d choose to be a notable, and extremely promising, AI accomplishment. A person with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which was once generally known as Lou Gehrig’s illness, had completely misplaced his skill to make use of his voice. He couldn’t make a single sound, a lot much less utter a phrase or participate in a dialog.
Physicians on the College of California, Davis, had been capable of assemble a three-dimensional printed mannequin of his mind and use it as a option to decide the place to implant electrodes that linked the affected person’s mind with a pc. Then they sank 4 electrode arrays into his mind’s outer layer. Every array had 64 spikes and appeared like a tiny mattress of nails. Every spike detected impulses from the neurons that fired when the affected person tried to type a phrase by transferring his tongue, lips, or jaw. The pc was capable of translate these makes an attempt into sounds.
Quickly after implantation, the machine – implants plus the pc, termed a neuroprosthesis – was capable of acknowledge a 50 phrase vocabulary with 99.6% accuracy. Right here’s how the article within the New England Journal of Medication summarized the outcomes of the therapy:
“Twenty-five days after surgical procedure, on the primary day of system use and following half-hour of assortment of cortical recordings and processing whereas the participant tried to talk, the neuroprosthesis achieved 99.6% accuracy with a 50-word vocabulary. On the second day, after 1.4 further hours of system coaching, the neuroprosthesis achieved 90.2% accuracy utilizing a 125,000-word vocabulary. With additional coaching information, the neuroprosthesis sustained 97.5% accuracy for self-paced conversations for over 248 cumulative hours over 8.4 months after surgical implantation.
“In a person with ALS and extreme dysarthria, an intracortical speech neuroprosthesis reached a degree of efficiency appropriate to revive naturalistic communication after temporary coaching.” (N Engl J Med. 2024 Aug 15; 391(7): 609–618. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2314132)
I’m conscious that a number of folks view AI as a severe and looming risk to human existence. If machines can do all that, why do we’d like people? The instance above is a transparent indication of why we do want people. It was people who found out that AI would possibly represent a solution to that affected person’s extremely regarding drawback. AI can course of the mind scans and give you the place precisely to implant the electrodes, however a human has to instruct it to take action. And it’s a complete lot extra sensible and handy to have a human being really implant the electrodes. We’re not antiquated and ineffective – not but, anyway!
Everyone knows that hypertension – hypertension, as it’s identified to the healthcare world and a lot of the remainder of the world as properly – is a transparent and regarding well being danger. After we go to any medical practitioner, nearly at all times the primary issues the nurse does is verify our top, weight, and blood strain. It feels routine and nearly trivial. In case your blood strain is a bit excessive on that preliminary studying, chances are high the nurse, or the doctor, will verify it once more. It’s necessary to do the blood strain measurement appropriately.
Right here’s what the Harvard Well being Letter says about taking your individual blood strain.
“Whether or not you’re on the physician’s workplace or checking your individual blood strain, it’s necessary to take sure steps to get correct readings.
Don’t drink a caffeinated beverage or smoke in the course of the half-hour earlier than the check. Sit quietly for 5 minutes earlier than the check begins.
Through the measurement, sit in a chair together with your ft on the ground and your arm supported so your elbow is at about coronary heart degree.
The inflatable a part of the cuff ought to utterly cowl no less than 80% of your higher arm, and the cuff ought to be positioned on naked pores and skin, not over a shirt.
Don’t discuss in the course of the measurement.
Have your blood strain measured twice, with a short break in between. If the readings are completely different by 5 factors or extra, have it finished a 3rd time.
It’s a good suggestion to have your blood strain measured in each arms no less than as soon as, for the reason that studying in a single arm could also be greater (often the correct, since there’s extra direct blood movement from the center on that facet). The upper quantity ought to be used to make therapy selections.”
Why did Harvard Well being assume it was a good suggestion to put up these directions? My guess is, as a result of many extra folks at the moment are doing their very own blood strain readings. There was a time when an individual would have his/her blood strain checked solely within the context of a healthcare go to of some variety. However these days, easy residence blood strain measuring units are broadly (and inexpensively) accessible. Errors in utilizing these units, in addition to doable defects within the units themselves, might simply result in inaccurate readings, and inaccurate readings – whether or not on the excessive or low facet – might have dangerous penalties. Maybe the Harvard Well being directions will make an actual distinction in lowering the frequency of unsuitable blood strain readings, and, additionally maybe, result in improved well being outcomes.
* * * * * * *
The following time I put fingers to the keyboard (in my capability as Doc Gumshoe, anyway) I’m going to try urinary tract infections. These are the commonest infections within the US, and they’re much greater than a nuisance.
As I’ve mentioned many occasions, I welcome your feedback – preserve them coming! Additionally, please let me know of any areas within the healthcare orbit that I ought to scrutinize.
Be properly, and thanks once more! Greatest, Michael Jorrin (aka Doc Gumshoe)
[ed note: Michael Jorrin, who I dubbed “Doc Gumshoe” many years ago, is a longtime medical writer (not a doctor) and shares his commentary with Gumshoe readers once or twice a month. He does not generally write about the investment prospects of topics he covers, but has agreed to our trading restrictions. Past Doc Gumshoe columns are available here.]
