Search This Blog

Saturday, January 1, 2022

TikTok trend can have teens believing they have serious mental disorders

 A new trend on TikTok could lead some teens to believe they have a serious mental disorder, according to some experts.

The app, which has become a community for users to connect and for teens to show off dance moves and share other fun videos, has recently had some trending videos of young people claiming to have a borderline personality, bipolar or dissociative identity disorder, which is spreading like wildfire on the platform.

Posts with the hashtags, "dissociative identity disorder" and "borderline personality disorder" have been viewed hundreds of millions of times. And some of those videos list possible signs to look out for and encourage viewers to self-evaluate.

Samantha Fridley, 18, said these videos influenced her to believe that she was suffering from a mental disorder.

"I remember seeing these videos on my 'For You' page of people saying, like, 'These are signs that you have this disorder,' bipolar or borderline and all these other weird disorders that I've never even heard of before," Fridley told "GMA." "My mind would be like, 'Maybe I don't have just depression and anxiety, maybe I have something else.'"

"After working with a therapist for a long time, I started realizing that I don't have borderline personality, I don't have disassociated identity, I don't have bipolar. I just have what I've always had, which is depression and anxiety," she added.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, borderline personality disorder is extremely rare -- only 1.4% of the U.S. adult population is estimated to have this condition and it is rarely diagnosed in adolescents.

Mental health professionals say these videos may pose an alarming risk to a potentially vulnerable population.

"If you spend 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes viewing people talk about these disorders over and over again, that can make it seem like these conditions are a lot more prevalent than they actually are in the world," said psychologist Ethan Kross, the author of "Chatter: The Voice in Our Head, Why It Matters, and How to Harness It."

To help teens on TikTok, experts are urging parents to maintain an open line of communication with their kids about mental health.

"Take the time to empathetically hear them out," Kross said. "How intense are these symptoms? How long are they lasting? Does it seem like they're interfering with your child's ability to live the life that they want to live? Again, if the answer to those questions is yes, that's a cue to then take the next steps to get a formal diagnosis."

In a statement to ABC News, a TikTok spokesperson said, "We care deeply about the well-being of our community, which is why we continue to invest in digital literacy education aimed at helping people evaluate and understand content they engage with online. We strongly encourage individuals to seek professional medical advice if they are in need of support."

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/wellness/story/experts-troubled-tiktok-trend-teens-believing-mental-disorders-81964649

AAN Updates Painful Diabetic Neuropathy Guidance

 Gabapentinoids, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers were more likely than placebo to improve diabetic neuropathy pain, according to a new practice guideline from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).

Those classes typically had comparable effect sizes around the 0.5 standardized mean difference (SMD) cutoff for a medium effect size, reported Brian Callaghan, MD, MS, of University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and co-authors:

  • Gabapentinoids (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.21–0.67)
  • SNRIs (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.60)
  • Sodium channel blockers (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.25–0.87)
  • SNRI/opioid dual mechanism agents (SMD 0.62, 95% CI 0.38–0.86)
The exception was tricyclic antidepressants, which showed a large effect size with a low confidence in the estimate (SMD 0.95, 95% CI 0.15–1.8), they wrote in Neurology.

The new guideline updated the AAN's 2011 guidance on treating painful diabetic neuropathy and focused on oral and topical drugs.

"New studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline," Callaghan said in a statement.

Peripheral neuropathy is a common complication of diabetes. It occurs more frequently in patients with longer duration of diabetes or poor glycemic control. Diabetic neuropathy often goes untreated.

In clinical trials, about 30% pain reduction is considered a success, the AAN guideline authors observed. Patients should be made aware of the expected efficacy of neuropathy interventions, because some may expect complete pain relief, they added.

The guidance also recommended that clinicians should:

  • Assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain
  • Evaluate neuropathy patients for concurrent mood disorders, especially depression, and sleep disorders, including obstructive sleep apnea
  • Offer tricyclic antidepressants, SNRIs, gabapentinoids, or sodium channel blockers to reduce pain, and consider other factors besides efficacy such as potential adverse effects, patient comorbidities, and cost
  • Not prescribe valproic acid (Depakene) for patients with childbearing potential, and not prescribe it for other patients unless multiple other drugs have failed
  • Try medications from another effective class if patients don't experience meaningful improvement or have significant adverse effects with their first treatment
  • Consider other ways to reduce pain including topical treatments like capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, or Citrullus colocynthis; nontraditional treatments like Ginkgo biloba; or interventions like cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, tai chi, or mindfulness, depending on patient preferences

The guidelines also recommended against use of opioids to treat neuropathy, including SNRI/opioid dual mechanism agents like tramadol (Ultram) and tapentadol (Nucynta), and to consider offering patients currently using these drugs a safe taper and non-opioid treatment options.

The risk profile of tramadol is poor, with respiratory depression, addiction, and overdose reflected in a black box warning, though the drug originally was marketed as less opioid-like and less risky, the guideline authors noted. Tapentadol, a Schedule II opioid, also is associated with severe adverse events, including life threatening respiratory depression, addiction, overdose, and death.

Opioids are often prescribed for peripheral neuropathy, but no clinical trials show that they work in the long term. "Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed," Callaghan said.

The AAN also published a quality measurement set to accompany the guidance to help improve care for all polyneuropathy patients, not just those with painful diabetic neuropathy.


Disclosures

The guideline was developed with financial support from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN).

Callaghan reported relationships with Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs, DynaMed, AAN, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and NIH. Co-authors reported relationships with academic centers, nonprofit groups, publishing companies, government agencies, and pharmaceutical firms.

What Happened to the Novavax Vaccine?

 In JuneMedPage Today wrote about whether Novavax and its "tried-and-true" subunit protein approach to a COVID-19 vaccine could potentially ease vaccine hesitancy. In this story, we explore what's known about the vaccine and why it still isn't on the market.

Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson: Ask any American, and they'll likely be able to rattle off the trio of COVID-19 vaccines available in the U.S.

But what about Novavax's "tried and true" protein subunit vaccine?

Early this year, public health experts told MedPage Today that Novavax -- whose vaccine strategy is used in other vaccines on the market today -- could provide another option to reach the vaccine hesitant.

The recombinant nanoparticle technology used in Novavax's protein subunit vaccine candidate (known as NVX-CoV2373) generates full spike protein, and the vaccine is formulated with an adjuvant to enhance immune response and stimulate high levels of neutralizing antibodies, according to the company.

The technology is the same as that used in the Flublok influenza vaccine, and is similar to other vaccines that have been around for a long time, like the hepatitis B vaccine.

However, nearly a year later, the Novavax vaccine still isn't available in the U.S. In August, Novavax announced that it was delaying submission of an emergency use authorization (EUA) to the FDA until the fourth quarter.

On December 15, full results from PREVENT-19, Novavax's pivotal phase III trial of its vaccine, were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The company said in an announcement that the trial achieved its primary endpoint of preventing infection at least 7 days after the second dose. Overall efficacy was 90.4% and efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease was 100%. Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate and transient. Severe reactions were infrequent, and there were no safety concerns related to vaccination.

Novavax did not immediately make a member of leadership available for an interview following the publication of the study. However, a spokesperson told MedPage Today in an email that it expects to submit its complete chemistry, manufacturing, and controls data package to the FDA by the end of 2021.

"We still anticipate a significant market need in the U.S. and globally," the spokesperson said.

At the same time, with the mRNA vaccines already saturating the market, it's not entirely clear how the Novavax vaccine will be rolled out or how it will resonate with consumers in the U.S., should it be granted an EUA from the FDA.

Mayank Mamtani, MSc, a senior biotech analyst and head of healthcare research at B. Riley Securities, told MedPage Today that the way to think about the vaccine is as an alternative to the mRNA vaccines. It is a "very strong vaccine," and while it may come late in the game, it has been differentiated, he noted.

"This is a very attractive option to have," he added.

In a December 16 research note, Mamtani wrote that NVX-CoV2373 is "well-suited for COVID's likely evolution into a relatively benign flu-like paradigm," adding that prior NEJM publications included datasets clinically validating that the Novavax platform "maintain[ed] high efficacy despite antigenic drifts, including via the adjuvant-specific effect."

"We view tolerability profile of a vaccine candidate to be a key consideration for use in a post-pandemic environment, where [Novavax] continues to stand out as the least reactogenic vaccine," he wrote.

The Novavax vaccine has made significant strides in other countries.

On December 20, the company announced that the European Commission had granted the vaccine conditional marketing authorization in people 18 and older. They noted that it had recently received an EUA in Indonesia and the Philippines, where it will be commercialized under the trade name Covovax. Covovax also received an emergency use listing from the WHO.

One day later, Novavax said it had initiated a booster study.

The vaccine's extended stability and simple storage requirements of up to 6 months at refrigerator temperatures make it "well suited for global deployment," according to the authors of the NEJM study.

"The efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 in preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 as well as any symptomatic COVID-19 in people at high risk for acquisition and complications of COVID-19 will make this vaccine a valuable tool in controlling the pandemic and its most serious health and economic consequences," they wrote.

Even with the trial's promising results, the question remains as to whether the Novavax vaccine will reach more of the vaccine hesitant in the U.S.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96461

Future of 'Overdose Prevention Centers'

 On July 14, 2021, MedPage Today reported on how Rhode Island became the first state to authorize a safe injection facility -- a site which allows people to inject or consume their own illegal substances under supervision. As part of our review of top stories in 2021, we follow up on what has happened since this authorization, with the launching of a pilot program for the same type of overdose prevention centers in New York City.

On November 30, 2021, New York City opened the first official overdose prevention centers in the country. Users bring their own drugs into the sites, where they are monitored by staff who provide clean needles and give overdose reversal drug naloxone when needed.

One underground, unsanctioned site has been active in the U.S. since 2014, but New York is the first city to open such a facility publicly with the support of local officials. Over 100 safe injection sites are currently operating in at least 10 other countries.

"With more than 100,000 people across the country dying unnecessarily" from drug overdoses, it was the right time to act, said Melissa Moore, director of civil systems reform for the Drug Policy Alliance, a non-profit that supports harm reduction and drug decriminalization.

In just those 3 weeks up until December 21, the New York City sites have been used more than 2,000 times and their staff helped to avert 59 overdoses, Moore told MedPage Today.

"We are meeting people who use drugs where they are in their life journey to support them in building their self-worth," said Sam Rivera, executive director of OnPoint NYC, in a press release from the New York City Department of Health celebrating the latest data.

James Baker, MD, MPH, past chair of the Massachusetts Medical Society's Committee on Mental Health and Substance Use, whose son died of a heroin overdose at the age of 23, said he was pleased to see the city putting the health of its people "ahead of outdated laws." And, he added: "That's very hopeful for places like Boston."

Advocates in Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and several other cities are battling to open their own sites, and often face serious opposition from community leaders, local officials, and sometimes the federal government. The sites are still, in fact, illegal.

Some critics argue that sites like New York's will simply enable users who will go on to die in other settings.

David Murray, PhD, co-director for the Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., said claims that the sites work are "really pretty dubious" given what he views as weak and biased studies.

The fact that there are overdose reversals on site at a facility "may be very misleading," he said. People who use drugs often do so multiple times in a day and may continue to inject in settings where they aren't protected, Murray said.

"We see evidence that people continue to die, to overdose -- but just not on the facility itself," he noted.

Others say the centers will have minimal impact.

Keith Humphreys, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at California's Stanford University, said the sites are "just not that consequential," nor are they "scaleable."

"The first of these sites was 30 years ago, there's not even 150 of them on the entire planet," he said.

Humphreys said that while he wouldn't stop anyone from opening a site, there's a key question he wants answered: "What else could your public health department have done with that same amount of money?"

Humphreys, a former Obama administration senior drug control policy advisor, stressed that the question isn't only whether a public health tool "works" but how well it works relative to other investments, such as methadone and other forms of medication assisted treatment with stronger evidence behind them. He also compares the sites to more scalable tools like needle exchange programs and naloxone -- "things that could take care of a whole population rather than a very, very small number of people who happen to live in a very small area around a supervised injection room."

Alex Kral, an epidemiologist from the nonprofit health research institute RTI International, argued that there's never as much debate around how to save a person who's had a heart attack from dying, for example. "If the goal is to make sure that we improve these people's lives as much as possible, the first thing we have to do is save them; because if we don't save them, we're not going to improve their lives."

Baker agreed. "Right now ... there are so few options available to help people who are out on the street and using every day. Any option that helps bring them back to their families and to society and health is a good option."

New York City's Program

The site in Washington Heights follows a peer model, meaning staff supervising users have their own lived experience with addiction, explained Kral, who visited both sites a week before they opened.

In contrast, the East Harlem site, which is modeled off of Insite, a well-known safe injection site in Vancouver, has medical staff and a health clinic on site. Both sites have booths for injecting or consuming drugs and ventilated smoking vestibules, Kral explained.

For users, it's about more than having a safe place to inject, Moore said. "It's actually about the relationships that staff within the harm-reduction agencies are able to build with people, and then be able to connect them with other care, other forms of public health support," she said.

Sites also provide users with fentanyl test strips, which given the increased danger of fentanyl contamination and poisoning is "really crucial," Moore said.

Neither site has had to call for an ambulance, which is another benefit -- reducing the strain on an overburdened hospital system, particularly during COVID, according to Moore.

More sites are expected to open in 2022. One in the Bronx, one in Manhattan, and a third in an undetermined location, she added.

Will the Feds Intervene?

In opening these overdose prevention centers, New York ignored federal law. A section of the Controlled Substances Act, dubbed the "crack house statute," makes it illegal to operate, own, or rent a site with the intention of using, selling, storing, or manufacturing drugs.

In Kral's view, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) simply ignored that law. Incoming Mayor Eric Adams has said he supports the sites, as do four out of five district attorneys, who penned an op-ed asking President Biden to endorse them, Moore said.

So, there's little concern for interference from local government but still a chance the federal government could shutter the sites, Kral said.

Moore, however, is hopeful. She quoted HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra who, in a recent interview with NPR on drug policy in October, spoke of being "willing to go places where our opinions and our tendencies have not allowed us to go [before]."

While that statement wasn't an explicit endorsement, Moore characterized it as "a fair amount of dancing around it, but some signaling there."

Kral pointed out that, in spite of Becerra's known support for overdose prevention centers as Attorney General of California, the HHS Overdose Prevention Strategy released last month made no mention of the sites.

As for the other important federal player, Kral noted, "we've heard absolutely nothing ... from the Department of Justice."

Over the last 50 years of drug policy, Kral said a pattern has emerged, which starts with an act of civil disobedience, (the opening of an unsanctioned overdose prevention center) and continues with a city or two adopting a controversial measure, and after some time, a state or two.

Both needle exchange and naloxone programs followed this pattern, he noted.

The federal government did nothing to stop those programs, nor did they help them, he said, for as long as 20 years.

Given that context, "I wouldn't expect to hear from the federal government on this issue for ... maybe another decade or so," Kral said.

How to Open a Safe Injection Site

There are two routes to opening safe injection sites or overdose prevention centers: one is the legal route, and the other is the political route, Kral said.

New York took the political route, as de Blasio essentially thumbed his nose at federal officials and said, "We're just gonna do it." Philadelphia and several other cities and states appear to be taking the legal route.

Ronda Goldfein, Esq., vice president of Safehouse, the Philadelphia nonprofit working to establish an overdose prevention center there, despite praising New York's "wonderful, brave move," said her group has "consistently said that it wouldn't open without legal authority to do so."

The nonprofit is also not in the position to ignore a court order, said Goldfein, who is also executive director of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania.

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice sued Safehouse in 2019 and is still in active litigation. Ignoring the order would only create a "distraction" for the movement, over whether the group would be in contempt or not. Instead, Goldfein said, Safehouse wants to "keep our eye on the prize, which is to save lives and do it in the safest way, for all concerned."

Rhode Island Gov. Daniel McKee (D) signed a law in July authorizing safe injecting sites there. In California, a bill known as SB-57 that would allow California to open safe injection programs in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, passed the state Senate in April 2021. Kral noted it is expected to head to the state assembly early next year.

However, Philadelphia, oddly, is in the best position to negotiate its case.

In October, the Supreme Court chose not to review the case against Safehouse, Goldfein said during a panel discussion in November. But by petitioning the Supreme Court, Safehouse forced the Biden Administration to weigh in on its plans.

"In many ways, we don't regret being sued," Goldfein said, because the lawsuit has allowed the group to have conversations with the Biden administration on the issue that, to her knowledge, no other advocates are having.

The nonprofit initially expected a response from the DOJ -- the "first tell" from the Biden administration regarding where they stand on these sites -- in November, but this was postponed to early January.

And now, Goldfein told MedPage Today, the DOJ and Safehouse agreed to another extension to the government's response, this time to March 7, 2022.

With that extension, Goldfein wrote in an email, "Safehouse is optimistic that, with continued conversations, a mutually satisfactory resolution will be reached."

As for New York's influence, Goldfein said, "I think that every day that a site stays open, that lives are saved and that ... there's no residual fallout ... I think that all strengthens our position."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/addictions/96468

Texas Clinic Reports 15% Increase in Vasectomies After Near-Total Abortion Ban

 Since Texas enacted its near-total ban on abortion, at least one urologist says business in giving people vasectomies has picked up. Koushik Shaw says he’s seen a 15% increase in men requesting vasectomies since the ban went into effect on September 1. Shaw says his new upswell in patients is definitely because of the ban.

''‘Hey, I’m actually here because some of these changes that [Gov. Greg] Abbott and our legislature have passed that are really impacting our decision-making in terms of family planning,’ so that was a new one for me as a reason — the first time patients are citing state law as their motivating factor,” Shaw said.

So far, Shaw’s is the only clinic that has cited an increase in vasectomy requests, but with the Supreme Court set to decide the fate of Roe vs. Wade in 2022, and with the six-week abortion ban that incentivizes citizens to enforce the law in place until then, more men seem to be considering their role in family planning.

Traditionally, the onus of birth control has been placed on women. Hormonal birth control pills, IUDs, and other forms of birth control are undoubtedly necessary, but many women deal with uncomfortable, and occasionally negative side effects related to birth control use. For families that have already had the children that they want to have, or just don’t want to risk pregnancy, vasectomies are an important way to family plan, especially in states that limit the right to choose.

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania state representative Chris Rabb introduced “parody legislation” with the intent of pointing out the double-standard regarding birth control, family planning, and bodily autonomy. His bill would require men to have a vasectomy after the birth of their third child or their 40th birthday.

“As long as state legislatures continue to restrict the reproductive rights of cis women, trans men, and nonbinary people, there should be laws that address the responsibility of men who impregnate them. Thus, my bill will also codify ‘wrongful conception’ to include when a person has demonstrated negligence toward preventing conception during intercourse,” Rabb wrote in a memo about his proposal.

 Rabb was surprised that his dummy legislation incited ire throughout the nation. 

“The notion a man would have to endure or even think about losing bodily autonomy was met with outrage,” said Rabb. “When every single day women face this and it’s somehow okay for the government to invade the uteruses of women and girls, but it should be off-limits if you propose vasectomies or limit the reproductive rights of men.”

Though many men cringe at the mere mention of the word ‘vasectomy”, the procedure is simple, largely reversible (though reversing a vasectomy is more expensive and a bit more complicated than the initial vasectomy), and brings with it more than a few benefits.

Vasectomies are almost 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, compared to the slightly lower effectiveness of hormonal birth control. Also, vasectomies have few side effects, whereas hormonal birth control can cause negative side effects for some people. Not to mention, vasectomies are one and done—there’s no need to remember to take a pill every day. For people who already have children and are done having kids, vasectomies are the way to go.

Vasectomies are also more inexpensive than birth control. Vasectomies cost on average around $1500 and are generally covered by insurance. In contrast, birth control pills represent an ongoing expense that can average as much as $600 per year. Given that birth control is often taken over the course of someone’s reproductive life, $600 is year is far more expensive than a one-time $1,500 cost. Or tubal ligation, which can cost up to $6000.

https://www.fatherly.com/news/one-texas-clinic-reported-a-15-increase-in-vasectomies-after-near-total-abortion-ban/

Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution on Mental Health Outcomes

 Virat AgrawalJonathan H. CantorNeeraj Sood & Christopher M. Whaley

DOI 10.3386/w29593

PDF:https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29593/w29593.pdf


The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a “second pandemic” of anxiety and depression. While vaccines are primarily aimed at reducing COVID-19 transmission and mortality risks, they may have important secondary benefits. We use data from U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey merged to state-level COVID-19 vaccination eligibility data to estimate the secondary benefits of COVID-19 vaccination on mental health outcomes. To address endogenous COVID-19 vaccination, we leverage state-level variation in the timing of when age groups are eligible for vaccination. We estimate that COVID-19 vaccination reduces anxiety and depression symptoms by nearly 30%. Nearly all the benefits are private benefits, and we find little evidence of spillover effects, that is, increases in community vaccination rates are not associated with improved anxiety or depression symptoms among the unvaccinated. We find that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with larger reductions in anxiety or depression symptoms among individuals with lower education levels, who rent their housing, who are not able to telework, and who have children in their household. The economic benefit of reductions in anxiety and depression are approximately $350 billion. Our results highlight an important, but understudied, secondary benefit of COVID-19 vaccinations.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w29593#fromrss

Nasal spray to prevent COVID infection begins clinical trials

 An innovative clinical trial is set to commence in Australia testing whether a common blood thinning drug can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. The drug is administered by nasal spray and researchers believe it can block the virus from initially infecting cells in the nose.

The nasal spray is based on a hypothesis suggesting initial SARS-CoV-2 infections take hold in the nose via a molecule called heparan sulfate. The virus’s infamous spike protein binds to heparan sulfate which enhances its ability to subsequently interact with ACE2 receptors and infect human cells.

Heparin is a widely used anti-coagulant, first discovered over a century ago and safely used as a treatment for heart attacks and blood clots. Gary Anderson, from the University of Melbourne’s Lung Health Research Centre, says early research has indicated heparin is so molecularly similar to heparan sulfate that it can neutralize SARS-CoV-2 particles when administered directly to cells in the nose.

“Heparin – the active ingredient in our spray – has a structure that is very similar to heparan sulphate, so it behaves as a ‘decoy’ and can rapidly wrap around the virus’s spike protein like a python, preventing it from infecting you or spreading the virus to others,” explains Anderson.

The large clinical trial testing the nasal spray will commence soon in the Australian state of Victoria. The plan is to distribute the spray to 400 houses within 24 hours of a confirmed case in each household. The trial will be blinded and placebo controlled, with each participant directed to take two puffs of the spray three times a day.

The goal will be to investigate whether the nasal spray prevents COVID-19 in close contacts of confirmed cases. Active COVID-19 cases will also be given the spray as the researchers are also looking at whether heparin reduces the infectiousness of a confirmed case.

The researchers say administering heparin as a nasal spray should not lead to broader blood thinning as it doesn’t reach the bloodstream when administered through the nose. Anderson also notes this prophylactic nasal spray should be effective against all viral variants.

"Importantly, this nasal spray should prove effective for all COVID-19 variants because the heparan sulphate binding site is essential for infection, and is likely to be preserved in new variants,” says Anderson. “Heparin binds avidly to the Omicron variant currently sweeping through the country.”

The trial is set to run for six months, so it won’t be known how well it works until the second half of 2022. However, if it does prove to be effective, it could be rolled out quickly as the drug is already approved for human use, doesn’t require refrigeration, and is easily distributed in plastic vials.

The treatment is not being proposed as an alternative to vaccination. Instead, the researchers suggest it will hopefully help protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 and prevent onward transmission in those experiencing vaccine-breakthrough infections.

“If the treatment is proven to work in the setting of preventing progression and spread within homes, it would support using the spray to protect highly vulnerable populations such as the elderly, pregnant women, and those with weak immune systems,” says Anderson. “It may also prove useful to protect our front-line health care workers from illness and to preserve capacity in the health care system.”

Source: University of Melbourne

https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/nasal-spray-heparin-coronavirus-infection-clinical-trial/