#JAMANetworkOpen

[mariebenz]

Yale Study Finds Pharmaceutical Companies Focus Advertising On Expensive Brand-Name Drugs

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Neeraj Patel Medical Student (MS-2), Yale School of Medicine New Haven, CT MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising has been increasing in popularity for the past two decades or so, particularly via television. But it’s highly controversial. Only two high-income countries (the U.S. and New Zealand) widely permit this type of advertising for prescription drugs. Critics have pointed to a growing body of literature that suggests that direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs can be misleading, lead to inappropriate prescribing, and inflate healthcare costs. Proponents have argued that it improves public health by promoting clinically beneficial prescribing. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response:  Our study assessed the most-commonly marketed drugs in these television advertisements and we had two main findings: First, we found that less than one-third of drugs commonly marketed from 2015 to 2021 were rated as having high therapeutic value, defined as providing at least moderate improvement in clinical outcomes compared to existing therapies according to at least one of three independent health technology assessment agencies. Second, we found that drugs categorized as “low benefit” accounted for $15.9 billion of the $22.3 billion (71.3%) in television advertising spending associated with our 73-drug sample over 6 years. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: Taken together with other research, our findings suggest that pharmaceutical companies focus their advertising campaigns on expensive, brand-name drugs that have little or no comparative benefit versus existing alternatives. In general, I think our findings raise questions about the public health value that these advertisements are offering to society, especially when considering the body of research on the misleading nature and negative downstream effects of such advertisements on prescribing patterns and healthcare costs. From a public health standpoint, it’s concerning to me that the healthcare system allocates billions of dollars annually towards drug advertisements, as opposed to higher-quality forms of medical communication. In general, I hope that our research findings will encourage and help enable policymakers to create more rigorous, evidence-based regulations on prescription drug advertising. MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a results of this study? Response: Policymakers and regulators should consider requiring disclaimers on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements regarding the comparative effectiveness of the products in such advertisements. Another concern about prescription drug advertisements is that they tend to have very low informational quality (as shown in a number of recent studies like this one). I think we should have more rigorous standards for weeding out misleading advertising and fund the FDA to apply current standards more proactively. Finally, given recent research on the harms and limited benefit of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs, I think policymakers should reconsider in which circumstances, if any, this type of advertising should be permitted. I have no conflicts of interest or other disclosures to report. Citation: Patel NG, Hwang TJ, Woloshin S, Kesselheim AS. Therapeutic Value of Drugs Frequently Marketed Using Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising, 2015 to 2021. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(1):e2250991. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50991 The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website.     Read the full article

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

Vaccination remains safe. Surprise, surprise.

By Stephanie Soucheray, MA

A new research letter published yesterday in JAMA Network Open shows no new safety concerns or reactogenicity signals among babies and toddlers who received their first COVID-19 vaccines by the age of 2.

The research comes from 5,644 US children who received at least 1 dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine between the ages of 6 and 24 months. All of the children had mothers who received a COVID-19 vaccination 30 days before their last menstrual period or during pregnancy.

The mean age at first dose was 12.4 months. Twenty percent of the children included in the study received their COVID vaccine with at least one other vaccine administered at the same time.

Postvaccination reactions were reported for 46.7% of children, with 21.1% and 38.8% experiencing local and systemic reactions, respectively, the authors said. Only 18 children in the study, 0.3%, experienced reactions described by participants as severe.

Fussiness most common reaction The most common reactions were fussiness (30%), local reaction (21.1%), and fever (13.8%). Six participants reported a seizure or febrile seizure after receiving COVID-19 vaccination. No deaths were reported.

Reactions were more common after the first dose of COVID vaccine than the second.

"This difference may reflect maternal vaccination; the first COVID-19 vaccination in our cohort may be some children’s second immunological encounter with a COVID-19 vaccine," the authors said. "These findings add evidence indicating that mild or moderate local and systemic reactions may be experienced, but severe reactions and serious adverse events are rare."

Study link: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2827028

[spooniestrong]

Make your voice heard and ask the CDC to:

Recommend updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccines for all ages AND

Strengthen our vaccine drive by recommending more frequent boosting (at least every six months) and more frequent updates to the vaccines, adjusted for the latest variants.

Submit a public comment using our sample language below.

You can also register to give Oral Public Comment at the upcoming June 26-28 online CDC ACIP Meeting at: https://www2.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/acip_publiccomment.asp 

Submit written comments and/or register to make oral comments at the meeting by Monday, June 17 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time.

It’s important to submit a personalized comment, which can be brief. Ideas for a personalized comment:

How you, your family, or your community would be impacted by fall vaccine eligibility being restricted to only high risk groups (such as older age or immunocompromised status)

Barriers to vaccination your have faced, particularly if your eligibility was questioned or misinterpreted by a vaccine provider

How out-of-pocket costs are a barrier to getting the latest vaccines

Also feel free to take inspiration from or borrow the language in our sample public comment below.

Docket No. CDC–2024–0043

Updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccines must be recommended for people of all ages, regardless of health status. A restrictive approach to eligibility would create undue barriers for vulnerable people and discourage high risk people from getting needed vaccine boosters.

The vaccine schedule should address waning efficacy in the months following vaccination [1-3] as well as emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 strains by recommending updated vaccination for all ages, at least every six months. Recent vaccination is also associated with a lower risk of developing Long COVID following a COVID infection [4] as well as a lower risk of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C) [5]. 

The CDC’s clear and unequivocal recommendation of updated COVID vaccination for all ages will influence what healthcare providers recommend, and what health insurances cover. Moreover, it will improve public awareness regarding the need for updated vaccination.

The CDC must ensure equitable and affordable access to updated vaccines and prevent limited access because of financial constraints or demographics. The CDC’s Bridge vaccine access program is slated to end August 2024 and must be extended to ensure uninsured and underinsured people have access to the updated vaccines this fall [6].

References:

1. Link-Gelles R. Effectiveness of COVID-19 (2023-2024 Formula) vaccines. Presented at: FDA VRBPAC Meeting; June 5, 2024. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/media/179140/download

2. Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, Vieira AM, et al. COVID-19 boosters versus primary series: update to a living review. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2023;11(10):e87-e88. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00265-5

3. Menegale F, Manica M, Zardini A, et al. Evaluation of Waning of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine–Induced Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2310650. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10650

4. Fang Z, Ahrnsbrak R, Rekito A. Evidence Mounts That About 7% of US Adults Have Had Long COVID. JAMA. Published online June 7, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.11370

5.  Yousaf AR. Notes from the Field: Surveillance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children — United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7310a2

6. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html 

Full instructions for written and oral comment and meeting information can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/index.html

You can also register to give Oral Public Comment at the upcoming June 26-28 online CDC ACIP Meeting at: https://www2.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/acip_publiccomment.asp 

You must register by June 17 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time

CDC’s ACIP meeting information on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/24/2024-11439/meeting-of-the-advisory-committee-on-immunization-practices 

Vaccination with the latest updated vaccines continues to be foundational to a multilayered approach to COVID, providing protection against both acute disease and Long COVID. Far too few Americans have received the latest vaccines. Only approximately 22.6% of adults and 14.8% of children have received the latest 2023-2024 vaccines (as of June 1, 2024), which have been available since Fall 2023. COVID vaccination rates in both groups lags far behind influenza vaccination rates. Only 7.1% of adults aged 65 and older received the recommended two doses of the 2023-2024 vaccine (as of April 27, 2024).

Vaccine efficacy wanes significantly four to six months following vaccination, making updated vaccination important for all people as COVID continues to spread in our communities. Vaccine approaches that restrict access based on age or risk status put all of us at risk and leave those at high risk of severe consequences of COVID infection confused about whether they qualify to receive additional doses. A more frequent vaccination approach providing vaccination at least every six months as well as frequent updates to match current variants is needed to better protect all of us amid year-round COVID spread.

The CDC’s Bridge Access Program, which provides COVID vaccines to uninsured and underinsured adults free of charge, is due to end August 2024. The end of this program will unnecessarily put vulnerable people at risk, and public health officials must advocate for continuation and expansion of this program.

Submitted written comments or registration to make oral comments at the meeting must be received by the CDC no later than June 17 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time

[hackernewsrobot]

Microplastics in the Olfactory Bulb of the Human Brain

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2823787

[kennak]

-WHO加盟183か国の健康寿命と寿命のギャップ Global Healthspan-Lifespan Gaps Among 183 World Health Organization Member States | Global Health | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2827753 Armin Garmany; Andre Terzic JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(12):e2450241. （図3を見るといい 先進国ではアメリカがとびぬけてギャップが大きい、その寄与要因は精神衛生、薬物、筋骨格疾患、尿生殖器系疾患、神経疾患

2024-12-18 - 野良猫　食情報研究所

[pgasiorek]

Alkohol zabija

Trafiłem gdzieś na dość świeże badania* dotyczące procentowej ilości zgonów spowodowanych przez alkohol. Realizowano je w latach 2015 – 2019 na terenie całych Stanów Zjednoczonych i średniorocznie obejmowały około 695 tysięcy śmierci kobiet i mężczyzn. Okazało się, że nadmierne spożycie alkoholu stanowiło blisko 13% (12,9%) wszystkich zgonów dorosłych między 20 a 64 rokiem życia i ponad 20% (20,3%) zgonów w węższej – od 20 do 49 lat – grupie wiekowej.

Nie wiem, czy są to dane zatrważające. Wydaje mi się, że tak, a już z pewnością powinny dać do myślenia każdemu. Oznacza to bowiem ni mniej ni więcej, że „tylko” jeden na osiem zgonów osoby dorosłej przed sześćdziesiątym piątym i aż jeden na pięć zgonów osoby dorosłej przed pięćdziesiątką jest wynikiem nadużywania alkoholu.

Nie będę teraz tutaj całościowo rozwodził się nad tym badaniem, gdyż zwyczajnie nie chce mi się tłumaczyć wcale nie takiego krótkiego, mocno specjalistycznego tekstu. Może jeszcze tylko dodam, że z analizowanych danych wynika, iż w Stanach Zjednoczonych alkohol jest główną przyczyną zgonów, której dałoby się zapobiec. I to zapobiec w sposób prosty: ograniczając ilości wypijanego alkoholu.

Pytanie, czy sytuacja ma się podobnie w Polsce wydaje się oczywiście ciekawe i niestety nie znam na nie odpowiedzi, ale sądzę, że śmiało można założyć, że wziąwszy pod uwagę powszechną dostępność do alkoholu w naszym kraju, raczej nie wypadamy lepiej na tym polu. Może więc czas uświadomić sobie, że ta lubiana i ceniona substancja psychoaktywna nie jest wcale takim niewinnym, w gruncie rzeczy niegro��nym reduktorem stresu i katalizatorem beztroskiej zabawy, ale dość niebezpieczną trucizna, której spożywanie w nadmiarze wiąże się z ryzykiem nie mniejszym niż to, przed którym ostrzegają nas napisy na pudełkach z papierosami.

*https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798004

[reportsofawartime]

Cognetti氏の論文では、Ogata氏の論文の10万倍のスパイク蛋白が血中から検出されている。Ogata氏の感染時論文と比べるのなら100〜1000倍。 https://mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/17/5857… 『これは最大濃度 14.6 μg/mL に相当します。最近発表された Ogata らの研究では、Quanterix アッセイを使用して、同様の時間スケールで 50 pg/mL 未満の濃度の血中スパイクタンパク質を測定しました [ 10 ]。私たちの光子アッセイと Ogata の研究との大きな食い違いは興味深く、この分野における知識が初期段階にあることを反映している可能性があります(this corresponds to a maximum concentration of 14.6 μg/mL. Recently published work by Ogata et al. used a Quanterix assay measured spike protein in the blood at concentrations less than 50 pg/mL on a similar timescale [10]. The large discrepancy between our photonic assay and the Ogata work was intriguing and may reflect the early stage of knowledge in this area. )』 そもそも感染時よりスパイク蛋白が少ないのなら、何故、接種時の方が抗体価が高くなるのが説明つかない。 https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221109124340.htm…https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798223

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Jan 22, 2024

Every time I recommend "The Myth of 'Reliable Research'" to medical professionals, they tell me it's a superb article, research at its finest.

They're not wrong.

The foundation for sex trait modification in minors ("gender-affirming care") is a Dutch study, published in two papers (2011 and 2014), and widely cited even today, even by transgender advocacy groups like WPATH, as the gold standard of research in this area. 

"The Myth of 'Reliable Research'" provides a critical appraisal of the Dutch study. It explains the serious methodological problems that led health authorities abroad to find--in systematic evidence reviews--that this research is highly unreliable. 

"Three methodological biases undermine the research: (1) subject selection assured that only the most successful cases were included in the results; (2) the finding that 'resolution of gender dysphoria' was due to the reversal of the questionnaire employed; (3) concomitant psychotherapy made it impossible to separate the effects of this intervention from those of hormones and surgery." 

The article discusses how an "innovative clinical practice" (essentially, an experiment) "escaped the lab" and was quickly adopted in a number of Western countries as "settled science." 

Though not discussed in the article, a key issue is why European health authorities have been better able to detect this problem of "runaway diffusion" and change course. As I've argued, the reasons have to do with a mixture of decentralization in American healthcare, complex private-public interactions, profit motives, professional incentives, and broader political polarization. 

After reviewing the flaws of the Dutch study, "The Myth of 'Reliable Research'" goes on to discuss subsequent research and the problem of "spin," which is when researchers misrepresent their findings (often in the abstract, perhaps anticipating that lazy, ideologically-aligned, or subscription-less journalists will often not read past that paragraph, but sometimes in the study's conclusion). 

The three examples of "spin" in research are:

* Carmichael et al. 2021: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243894 (note that there was a follow-up to this study: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2281986)

* Costa et al. 2015: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.13034

* Tordoff et al. 2022: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423 (the authors rightly call the spin of this article "dramatic")

For more on how journalists promote bad science see here: https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-media-is-spreading-bad-trans-science/

Medical historians and others who write about how Western societies got embroiled in one of the biggest medical scandals in modern history will undoubtedly cite "The Myth of 'Reliable Research'" as an important moment in the scientific debate, a moment when it was no longer possible for clinician-advocates to insist that the "science is settled" and that anyone who is skeptical is motivated by prejudice or ignorance. 

And the proof is in the pudding. Pro-medicalization activists, including clinicians, now admit that the quality of evidence--which in EBM means the confidence we can have in the estimate of effect of some intervention--is "very low." They insist, however, that many other pediatric interventions are also based on low quality evidence. 

The pivot is unsuccessful for reasons I can't get into here. There are exceptional circumstances where EBM allows for recommendations for treatment based on low-quality evidence, and this is not one of them. 

But let's not lose sight of the concession here, which is that "gender-affirming care" is an ongoing medical experiment, and two decades of research have failed to produce reliable findings that these risky and harmful interventions are "medically necessary." 

If you follow the gender medicine debate and haven't read "The Myth of 'Reliable Research,'" consider it a massive gap in your knowledge.

Here is the open-access article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

For precision: "innovative clinical practice" is not technically an experiment; in general, experiments--ideally, RCTs--are needed to figure out whether, when, and on whom ICPs are beneficial. But in the Dutch case, the ICP was launched more or less in the context of a (very poorly done) experiment. 

[ Archived: https://archive.md/CAsIP ]

[awfullyqueerwriter]

I stumbled across this article (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800814) read, it, the results are fascinating. However, if you’re a bit busy…

[impepperspray]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820437

it was 151 breast reductions performed, with those accounting for 96.4% of the surgeries performed on minors. the study also looked only at 2019. still, the sentiment is accurate

When you look up gender affirming surgery it says 'a broad range of procedures that help transgender and non-binary people transition to their gender identity'.

Seems 97% had the same procedure.

[wat3rm370n]

Of course universal masking & testing reduces hospital acquired infections from aerosol transmitted disease.

Pak TR, Chen T, Kanjilal S, McKenna CS, Rhee C, Klompas M. Testing and Masking Policies and Hospital-Onset Respiratory Viral Infections. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(11):e2448063. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.48063 In this study, stopping universal masking and SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with a significant increase in hospital-onset respiratory viral infections relative to community infections. Restarting the masking of health care workers was associated with a significant decrease. Limitations of our analysis included a lack of concurrent controls, possible variations in compliance, difficulty disentangling effects of testing vs masking, and potential case misclassification. However, medical record reviews suggested most hospital-onset cases were true acute cases. Nosocomial respiratory viral infections remain associated with increased length of stay and higher mortality in hospitalized populations.2-4 Our data suggest that masking5 and testing6 were 2 potentially effective measures to protect patients who are hospitalized, particularly when community respiratory virus incidence rates were elevated.

I really feel like this study determined that the tub stopped overflowing once the tap was shut off and the drain plug was pulled. It does seem that obvious.

But I guess we need 10 more studies like this before supposedly educated doctors and healthcare providers and facility executives and public health officials wake up and smell the coffee and pick up the damn clue phone and actually do something about hospital acquired infections. Or we need to keep pressing elected representatives to be responsible for actually doing their job and stepping up to what it takes to face public health challenges with solutions that are both science-based and often obvious common sense.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

Results from a randomized control trial published yesterday in JAMA Network Open show that participants who received mRNA COVID-19 and inactivated influenza vaccines simultaneously had no more adverse effects than those who received the two shots sequentially, 1 or 2 weeks apart.

The study included 335 people who were vaccinated from October 2021 to June 2023 at one of three US study sites. All participants were ages 5 years and older and intended to receive both flu and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The average age of participants was 33.4 years, and 63% were female.

In total, 169 received the vaccines simultaneously, while 166 received them sequentially.

The authors said the main outcomes of the study were reactogenicity, including fever, chills, muscle aches, and/or joint pain of moderate or greater severity within 7 days after vaccination. Serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were assessed for 121 days.

Over half of participants (57.0%) reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or had detectible antibodies to the virus at the time of study enrollment.

Good safety data The authors found that the proportion of study participants with the primary composite reactogenicity outcome in the simultaneous group (25.6%) was noninferior to the proportion in the sequential group (31.3%).

"Fewer than 13% of participants in either group (simultaneous, 14 [8.3%]; sequential, 21 [12.6%]) had a severe reaction for any of the solicited reactions, and no participants sought medical attention for a solicited reaction," the authors wrote.

Similarly, there was no difference between the two groups in health-related quality of life indexes.

"This trial lends support to the option of simultaneous administration of these vaccines, which is a strategy to achieve high levels of vaccination coverage during anticipated periods of increased influenza and SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission," the authors concluded.

Study Link:

 jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2825813

[darkmaga-returns]

If vaccines caused autism, then you would expect at least two things to occur:

— rising prevalence after the 1970s

—peak prevalence near age 6

Back in the 1970s, only 3 vaccines — covering 7 total diseases — were recommended:

But then the childhood vaccine schedule grew and grew, so that by just age 1 (12 months old), infants get at least 24 total shots:

If vaccines caused autism, then you would expect for the incidence of autism diagnoses to rise along with this remarkable rise in vaccine administration.

Also, after getting hit hard for the first year of life (up to 18 months, actually), later on — during ages 4 to 6 — kids get dosed again with final doses of 4 types of prior vaccines:

For this reason, not only would it be expected that autism rates would rise, but also that kids around age 6 would show up with the highest prevalence — having had the highest and final doses of four of the types of vaccines.

CDC reports a rising prevalence, from 1-child-in-150 back in 2000, to 1-child-in-36 today:

The situation is even worse when just looking at boys, who have an autism prevalence now of 1-boy-in-23 (4.3% of boys):

And a new report in JAMA shows that kids in the age group of around 6 years old (kids who have had that final round of childhood vaccines) have the most autism:

The evidence, though circumstantial, does suggest that vaccines cause autism.

Reference

[the “three-vaccine” schedule from the 1970s] — https://www.marinhealthcare.org/upload/public-meetings/2018-06-19-600-pm-mhd-community-health-seminar-vaccination/BRANCO_06192018_MGH%20Vaccine%20Presentation.pdf

[recent childhood vaccine schedule] — https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11288-childhood-immunization-schedule?sf263367950=1

[CDC reports of autism prevalence] — https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html

[National Institute of Mental Health report on autism by sex] — https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/autism-spectrum-disorder-asd

[new JAMA report on autism, showing kids 5-8 had the highest rate] — Grosvenor LP, Croen LA, Lynch FL, Marafino BJ, Maye M, Penfold RB, Simon GE, Ames JL. Autism Diagnosis Among US Children and Adults, 2011-2022. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2442218. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42218. PMID: 39476234. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2825472

[havegaysex]

Comment period Ends June 17th 2024 Copied directly from the People's CDC website https://peoplescdc.org/2024/06/13/acip/ Also feel free to take inspiration from or borrow the language in our sample public comment below. Docket No. CDC–2024–0043 Updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccines must be recommended for people of all ages, regardless of health status. A restrictive approach to eligibility would create undue barriers for vulnerable people and discourage high risk people from getting needed vaccine boosters. The vaccine schedule should address waning efficacy in the months following vaccination [1-3] as well as emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 strains by recommending updated vaccination for all ages, at least every six months. Recent vaccination is also associated with a lower risk of developing Long COVID following a COVID infection [4] as well as a lower risk of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C) [5]. The CDC’s clear and unequivocal recommendation of updated COVID vaccination for all ages will influence what healthcare providers recommend, and what health insurances cover. Moreover, it will improve public awareness regarding the need for updated vaccination. The CDC must ensure equitable and affordable access to updated vaccines and prevent limited access because of financial constraints or demographics. The CDC’s Bridge vaccine access program is slated to end August 2024 and must be extended to ensure uninsured and underinsured people have access to the updated vaccines this fall [6]. References: 1. Link-Gelles R. Effectiveness of COVID-19 (2023-2024 Formula) vaccines. Presented at: FDA VRBPAC Meeting; June 5, 2024. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/media/179140/download Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, Vieira AM, et al. COVID-19 boosters versus primary series: update to a living review. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2023;11(10):e87-e88. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00265-5 Menegale F, Manica M, Zardini A, et al. Evaluation of Waning of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine–Induced Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2310650. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10650 Fang Z, Ahrnsbrak R, Rekito A. Evidence Mounts That About 7% of US Adults Have Had Long COVID. JAMA. Published online June 7, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.11370 Yousaf AR. Notes from the Field: Surveillance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children — United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7310a2 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html Full instructions for written and oral comment and meeting information can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/index.html You can also register to give Oral Public Comment at the upcoming June 26-28 online CDC ACIP Meeting at: https://www2.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/acip_publiccomment.asp You must register by June 17 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time CDC’s ACIP meeting information on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/24/2024-11439/meeting-of-the-advisory-committee-on-immunization-practices

Why? WHY??

U.S. CDC taking comments on potentially limiting COVID vaccine availbility by age or health status. Never mind that the vaccine is crucial to limiting long-term effects that could lead to immunocomprimisation. 🤬🤬🤬

You can comment here.

[hackernewsrobot]

Effect of repeated low-level red light on myopia prevention

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2804215

[ocombatente]

Saúde e nutrição com Clayton Camargos: álcool não é saudável

  Clayton Camargos Saúde e nutrição com Clayton Camargos: álcool não é saudável No Brasil, de acordo com dados do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), em 2022, o mercado de bebidas alcoólicas registrou um aumento de 5,2%, indicando que os brasileiros estão consumindo mais álcool. Um editorial da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) publicado em janeiro de 2023 na revista científica The Lancet Public Health afirma que não há níveis seguros de consumo de álcool para a saúde. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health O editorial enfatiza que o consumo de álcool é um fator significativo para mais de 200 tipos de prejuízos sanitários, incluindo câncer, doenças cardiovasculares e hepáticas, depressão, bem como comportamentos violentos, acidentes incapacitantes e fatais. A OMS defende que as nações adotem políticas públicas de saúde que promovam a diminuição do consumo apoiadas por medidas como a elevação de impostos, a limitação da venda para menores de idade e a proibição da publicidade de bebidas alcoólicas. De outra parte, a afirmação de que baixos níveis de ingestão de álcool podem trazer benefícios à saúde e proteção contra todas as causas de mortalidade é altamente controversa. Embora estudos observacionais e metanálises relatem que indivíduos que consomem quantidades moderadas de álcool tendem a viver mais e têm menor probabilidade de desenvolver doenças cardíacas em comparação com abstêmios, há evidências de que esses resultados são influenciados por vieses sistemáticos, como o uso de indicadores de saúde não relacionados ao consumo de álcool, incluindo dieta, higiene bucal, renda individual e peso corporal. Outros vieses incluem a falha em distinguir entre abstêmios completos, ex-bebedores e a possibilidade de que os abstêmios possam ter problemas de saúde por outras causas. O que temos de novo? No início de 2023, pesquisadores canadenses da University of Victoria veicularam no Journal of American Medical Association uma revisão sistemática e metanálise abrangendo 107 estudos publicados até julho de 2021, envolvendo mais de 4,8 milhões de participantes. O título do artigo: Association Between Daily Alcohol Intake and Risk of All-Cause Mortality – A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses, em livre tradução, “Associação entre a ingestão diária de álcool e o risco de mortalidade por todas as causas – uma revisão sistemática e metanálise”. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802963 O que o estudo mostrou? A revisão sistemática detectou que os erros em outras investigações envolvendo a classificação incorreta de bebedores ocasionais como abstêmios eram frequentes, com 86 das 107 pesquisas apresentando tais discrepâncias. Após considerar possíveis vieses e efeitos de confusão associados à amostragem e classificação incorreta de ex-bebedores, foi constatado que a ingestão de baixa quantidade de álcool, menos de 25 g/dia ou 02 drinques/dia, não ofereceu nenhum benefício protetor contra o risco de mortalidade por todas as causas em nenhum dos sexos frente aos abstêmios. No entanto, o risco de mortalidade por todas as causas foi significativamente maior para mulheres que consumiram mais de 25 g de álcool/dia e homens que beberam mais de 45 g de álcool/dia. Além disso, pessoas com alcoolismo tiveram um risco 19% maior de morte. Cabe destacar, idosos que bebem pouco tendem a ser mais saudáveis não por uma proteção brindada pelo álcool, mas porque aqueles que adoecem precisam parar de beber por orientação médica. Por fim, é importante lembrar que correlação não é causalidade. Beber uma taça de vinho por dia faz bem à saúde? Durante muito tempo, foi difundida a hipótese sedutora de que o consumo equilibrado de álcool poderia estar associado a um estilo de vida saudável e sofisticado. No entanto, a ingestão limitada de bebidas alcoólicas não traz benefícios à saúde, enquanto o consumo excessivo pode trazer graves prejuízos. É importante lembrar que os efeitos da sua ingestão variam de pessoa para pessoa e dependem de uma série de fatores, incluindo idade, sexo, histórico de saúde e genética. Idealmente, para promover a saúde de forma efetiva, o consumo de álcool deveria ser completamente evitado, mesmo em quantidades moderadas. Informação é prevenção. Você tem alguma dúvida sobre saúde, alimentação e nutrição? Envie um e-mail para e poderei responder sua pergunta futuramente. Nenhum conteúdo desta coluna, independentemente da data, deve ser usado como substituto de uma consulta com um profissional de saúde qualificado e devidamente registrado no seu Conselho de Categoria correspondente. Clayton Camargos é sanitarista pós graduado pela Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública – ENSP/Fiocruz. Desde 2002, ex gerente da Central Nacional de Regulação de Alta Complexidade (CNRAC) do Ministério da Saúde. Subsecretário de Planejamento em Saúde (SUPLAN) da Secretaria de Estado de Saúde do Distrito Federal (SES-DF). Consultor técnico para Coordenação-Geral de Fomento à Pesquisa Em Saúde da Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos (SCTIE) do Ministério da Saúde. Coordenador Nacional de Promoção da Saúde (COPROM) da Diretoria de Serviços (DISER) da Fundação de Seguridade Social. Docente das graduações de Medicina, Nutrição e Educação Física, e coordenador dos estágios supervisionados em nutrição clínica e em nutrição esportiva do Departamento de Nutrição, e diretor do curso sequencial de Vigilância Sanitária da Universidade Católica de Brasília (UCB). Atualmente é proprietário da clínica Metafísicos. CRN-1 2970.   Fonte: Nacional Read the full article