User login
Damian McNamara is a journalist for Medscape Medical News and MDedge. He worked full-time for MDedge as the Miami Bureau covering a dozen medical specialties during 2001-2012, then as a freelancer for Medscape and MDedge, before being hired on staff by Medscape in 2018. Now the two companies are one. He uses what he learned in school – Damian has a BS in chemistry and an MS in science, health and environmental reporting/journalism. He works out of a home office in Miami, with a 100-pound chocolate lab known to snore under his desk during work hours.
FDA, CDC urge pause of J&J COVID vaccine
The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 13 recommended that use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine be paused after reports of blood clots in patients receiving the shot, the agencies have announced.
In a statement, FDA said 6.8 million doses of the J&J vaccine have been administered and the agency is investigating six reported cases of a rare and severe blood clot occurring in patients who received the vaccine.
The pause is intended to give time to alert the public to this "very rare" condition, experts said during a joint CDC-FDA media briefing April 13.
"It was clear to us that we needed to alert the public," Janet Woodcock, MD, acting FDA commissioner, said. The move also will allow "time for the healthcare community to learn what they need to know about how to diagnose, treat and report" any additional cases.
The CDC will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the cases.
"I know the information today will be very concerning to Americans who have already received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine," said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director at the CDC.
"For people who got the vaccine more than one month ago, the risk is very low at this time," she added. "For people who recently got the vaccine, in the last couple of weeks, look for symptoms."
Headache, leg pain, abdominal pain, and shortness of breath were among the reported symptoms. All six cases arose within 6 to 13 days of receipt of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Traditional treatment dangerous
Importantly, treatment for traditional blood clots, such as the drug heparin, should not be used for these clots. "The issue here with these types of blood clots is that if one administers the standard treatment we give for blood clots, one can cause tremendous harm or it can be fatal," said Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
If health care providers see people with these symptoms along with a low platelet count or blood clots, they should ask about any recent vaccinations, Dr. Marks added.
Headache is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Marks said, but it typically happens within a day or two. In contrast, the headaches associated with these blood clots come 1 to 2 weeks later and were very severe.
Not all of the six women involved in the events had a pre-existing condition or risk factor, Dr. Schuchat said.
Severe but 'extremely rare'
To put the numbers in context, the six reported events occurred among millions of people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to date.
"There have been six reports of a severe stroke-like illness due to low platelet count and more than six million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been administered so far," Dr. Schuchat said.
"I would like to stress these events are extremely rare," Dr. Woodcock said, "but we take all reports of adverse events after vaccination very seriously."
The company response
Johnson & Johnson in a statement said, "We are aware of an extremely rare disorder involving people with blood clots in combination with low platelets in a small number of individuals who have received our COVID-19 vaccine. The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases out of more than 6.8 million doses administered. Out of an abundance of caution, the CDC and FDA have recommended a pause in the use of our vaccine."
The company said they are also reviewing these cases with European regulators and "we have made the decision to proactively delay the rollout of our vaccine in Europe."
Overall vaccinations continuing apace
"This announcement will not have a significant impact on our vaccination plan. Johnson & Johnson vaccine makes up less than 5% of the recorded shots in arms in the United States to date," Jeff Zients, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a statement.
"Based on actions taken by the president earlier this year, the United States has secured enough Pfizer and Moderna doses for 300 million Americans. We are working now with our state and federal partners to get anyone scheduled for a J&J vaccine quickly rescheduled for a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine," he added.
The likely duration of the pause remains unclear.
"I know this has been a long and difficult pandemic, and people are tired of the steps they have to take," Dr. Schuchat said. "Steps taken today make sure the health care system is ready to diagnose, treat and report [any additional cases] and the public has the information necessary to stay safe."
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated 4/13/21.
The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 13 recommended that use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine be paused after reports of blood clots in patients receiving the shot, the agencies have announced.
In a statement, FDA said 6.8 million doses of the J&J vaccine have been administered and the agency is investigating six reported cases of a rare and severe blood clot occurring in patients who received the vaccine.
The pause is intended to give time to alert the public to this "very rare" condition, experts said during a joint CDC-FDA media briefing April 13.
"It was clear to us that we needed to alert the public," Janet Woodcock, MD, acting FDA commissioner, said. The move also will allow "time for the healthcare community to learn what they need to know about how to diagnose, treat and report" any additional cases.
The CDC will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the cases.
"I know the information today will be very concerning to Americans who have already received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine," said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director at the CDC.
"For people who got the vaccine more than one month ago, the risk is very low at this time," she added. "For people who recently got the vaccine, in the last couple of weeks, look for symptoms."
Headache, leg pain, abdominal pain, and shortness of breath were among the reported symptoms. All six cases arose within 6 to 13 days of receipt of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Traditional treatment dangerous
Importantly, treatment for traditional blood clots, such as the drug heparin, should not be used for these clots. "The issue here with these types of blood clots is that if one administers the standard treatment we give for blood clots, one can cause tremendous harm or it can be fatal," said Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
If health care providers see people with these symptoms along with a low platelet count or blood clots, they should ask about any recent vaccinations, Dr. Marks added.
Headache is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Marks said, but it typically happens within a day or two. In contrast, the headaches associated with these blood clots come 1 to 2 weeks later and were very severe.
Not all of the six women involved in the events had a pre-existing condition or risk factor, Dr. Schuchat said.
Severe but 'extremely rare'
To put the numbers in context, the six reported events occurred among millions of people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to date.
"There have been six reports of a severe stroke-like illness due to low platelet count and more than six million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been administered so far," Dr. Schuchat said.
"I would like to stress these events are extremely rare," Dr. Woodcock said, "but we take all reports of adverse events after vaccination very seriously."
The company response
Johnson & Johnson in a statement said, "We are aware of an extremely rare disorder involving people with blood clots in combination with low platelets in a small number of individuals who have received our COVID-19 vaccine. The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases out of more than 6.8 million doses administered. Out of an abundance of caution, the CDC and FDA have recommended a pause in the use of our vaccine."
The company said they are also reviewing these cases with European regulators and "we have made the decision to proactively delay the rollout of our vaccine in Europe."
Overall vaccinations continuing apace
"This announcement will not have a significant impact on our vaccination plan. Johnson & Johnson vaccine makes up less than 5% of the recorded shots in arms in the United States to date," Jeff Zients, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a statement.
"Based on actions taken by the president earlier this year, the United States has secured enough Pfizer and Moderna doses for 300 million Americans. We are working now with our state and federal partners to get anyone scheduled for a J&J vaccine quickly rescheduled for a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine," he added.
The likely duration of the pause remains unclear.
"I know this has been a long and difficult pandemic, and people are tired of the steps they have to take," Dr. Schuchat said. "Steps taken today make sure the health care system is ready to diagnose, treat and report [any additional cases] and the public has the information necessary to stay safe."
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated 4/13/21.
The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 13 recommended that use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine be paused after reports of blood clots in patients receiving the shot, the agencies have announced.
In a statement, FDA said 6.8 million doses of the J&J vaccine have been administered and the agency is investigating six reported cases of a rare and severe blood clot occurring in patients who received the vaccine.
The pause is intended to give time to alert the public to this "very rare" condition, experts said during a joint CDC-FDA media briefing April 13.
"It was clear to us that we needed to alert the public," Janet Woodcock, MD, acting FDA commissioner, said. The move also will allow "time for the healthcare community to learn what they need to know about how to diagnose, treat and report" any additional cases.
The CDC will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the cases.
"I know the information today will be very concerning to Americans who have already received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine," said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director at the CDC.
"For people who got the vaccine more than one month ago, the risk is very low at this time," she added. "For people who recently got the vaccine, in the last couple of weeks, look for symptoms."
Headache, leg pain, abdominal pain, and shortness of breath were among the reported symptoms. All six cases arose within 6 to 13 days of receipt of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Traditional treatment dangerous
Importantly, treatment for traditional blood clots, such as the drug heparin, should not be used for these clots. "The issue here with these types of blood clots is that if one administers the standard treatment we give for blood clots, one can cause tremendous harm or it can be fatal," said Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
If health care providers see people with these symptoms along with a low platelet count or blood clots, they should ask about any recent vaccinations, Dr. Marks added.
Headache is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Marks said, but it typically happens within a day or two. In contrast, the headaches associated with these blood clots come 1 to 2 weeks later and were very severe.
Not all of the six women involved in the events had a pre-existing condition or risk factor, Dr. Schuchat said.
Severe but 'extremely rare'
To put the numbers in context, the six reported events occurred among millions of people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to date.
"There have been six reports of a severe stroke-like illness due to low platelet count and more than six million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been administered so far," Dr. Schuchat said.
"I would like to stress these events are extremely rare," Dr. Woodcock said, "but we take all reports of adverse events after vaccination very seriously."
The company response
Johnson & Johnson in a statement said, "We are aware of an extremely rare disorder involving people with blood clots in combination with low platelets in a small number of individuals who have received our COVID-19 vaccine. The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases out of more than 6.8 million doses administered. Out of an abundance of caution, the CDC and FDA have recommended a pause in the use of our vaccine."
The company said they are also reviewing these cases with European regulators and "we have made the decision to proactively delay the rollout of our vaccine in Europe."
Overall vaccinations continuing apace
"This announcement will not have a significant impact on our vaccination plan. Johnson & Johnson vaccine makes up less than 5% of the recorded shots in arms in the United States to date," Jeff Zients, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a statement.
"Based on actions taken by the president earlier this year, the United States has secured enough Pfizer and Moderna doses for 300 million Americans. We are working now with our state and federal partners to get anyone scheduled for a J&J vaccine quickly rescheduled for a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine," he added.
The likely duration of the pause remains unclear.
"I know this has been a long and difficult pandemic, and people are tired of the steps they have to take," Dr. Schuchat said. "Steps taken today make sure the health care system is ready to diagnose, treat and report [any additional cases] and the public has the information necessary to stay safe."
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated 4/13/21.
Study IDs most common lingering symptoms 8 months after mild COVID
Loss of smell, loss of taste, dyspnea, and fatigue are the four most common symptoms that health care professionals in Sweden report 8 months after mild COVID-19 illness, new evidence reveals.
according to the study.
“We see that a substantial portion of health care workers suffer from long-term symptoms after mild COVID-19,” senior author Charlotte Thålin, MD, PhD, said in an interview. She added that loss of smell and taste “may seem trivial, but have a negative impact on work, social, and home life in the long run.”
The study is noteworthy not only for tracking the COVID-19-related experiences of health care workers over time, but also for what it did not find. There was no increased prevalence of cognitive issues – including memory or concentration – that others have linked to what’s often called long-haul COVID-19.
The research letter was published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA.
“Even if you are young and previously healthy, a mild COVID-19 infection may result in long-term consequences,” said Dr. Thålin, from the department of clinical sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
The researchers did not observe an increased risk for long-term symptoms after asymptomatic COVID-19.
Adding to existing evidence
This research letter “adds to the growing body of literature showing that people recovering from COVID have reported a diverse array of symptoms lasting for months after initial infection,” Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, said in an interview. She is physician faculty lead at the University of California, San Francisco Post-COVID OPTIMAL Clinic.
Previous research revealed severe long-term symptoms, including heart palpitations and neurologic impairments, among people hospitalized with COVID-19. However, “there is limited data on the long-term effects after mild COVID-19, and these studies are often hampered by selection bias and without proper control groups,” Dr. Thålin said.
The absence of these more severe symptoms after mild COVID-19 is “reassuring,” she added.
The current findings are part of the ongoing COMMUNITY (COVID-19 Biomarker and Immunity) study looking at long-term immunity. Health care professionals enrolled in the research between April 15 and May 8, 2020, and have initial blood tests repeated every 4 months.
Dr. Thålin, lead author Sebastian Havervall, MD, and their colleagues compared symptom reporting between 323 hospital employees who had mild COVID-19 at least 8 months earlier with 1,072 employees who did not have COVID-19 throughout the study.
The results show that 26% of those who had COVID-19 previously had at least one moderate to severe symptom that lasted more than 2 months, compared with 9% in the control group.
The group with a history of mild COVID-19 was a median 43 years old and 83% were women. The controls were a median 47 years old and 86% were women.
“These data mirror what we have seen across long-term cohorts of patients with COVID-19 infection. Notably, mild illness among previously healthy individuals may be associated with long-term persistent symptoms,” Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist specializing in critical care at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and director of the Post-COVID Clinic, said in an interview.
“In this cohort, similar to others, this seems to be more pronounced in women,” Dr. Jolley added.
Key findings on functioning
At 8 months, using a smartphone app, participants reported presence, duration, and severity of 23 predefined symptoms. Researchers used the Sheehan Disability Scale to gauge functional impairment.
A total of 11% participants reported at least one symptom that negatively affected work or social or home life at 8 months versus only 2% of the control group.
Seropositive participants were almost two times more likely to report that their long-term symptoms moderately to markedly disrupted their work life, 8% versus 4% of seronegative healthcare workers (relative risk, 1.8; 95%; confidence interval, 1.2-2.9).
Disruptions to a social life from long-term symptoms were 2.5 times more likely in the seropositive group. A total 15% of this cohort reported moderate to marked effects, compared with 6% of the seronegative group (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).
The researchers also inquired about home life disruptions, which were reported by 12% of the seropositive health care workers and 5% of the seronegative participants (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4).
The study’s findings “tracks with a lot of the other work we’re seeing,” David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview. He and his colleagues are responsible for managing the rehabilitation of patients with long COVID.
Interestingly, the proportion of people with persistent symptoms might be underestimated in this research, Dr. Putrino said. “Antibodies are not an entirely reliable biomarker. So what the researchers are using here is the most conservative measure of who may have had the virus.”
Potential recall bias and the subjective rating of symptoms were possible limitations of the study.
When asked to speculate why researchers did not find higher levels of cognitive dysfunction, Dr. Putrino said that self-reports are generally less reliable than measures like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting cognitive impairment.
Furthermore, unlike many of the people with long-haul COVID-19 whom he treats clinically – ones who are “really struggling” – the health care workers studied in Sweden are functioning well enough to perform their duties at the hospital, so the study population may not represent the population at large.
More research required
“More research needs to be conducted to investigate the mechanisms underlying these persistent symptoms, and several centers, including UCSF, are conducting research into why this might be,” Dr. Santhosh said.
Dr. Thålin and colleagues plan to continue following participants. “The primary aim of the COMMUNITY study is to investigate long-term immunity after COVID-19, but we will also look into possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms behind COVID-19–related long-term symptoms,” she said.
“I hope to see that taste and smell will return,” Dr. Thålin added.
“We’re really just starting to understand the long-term effects of COVID-19,” Putrino said. “This is something we’re going to see a lot of moving forward.”
Dr. Thålin, Dr. Santhosh, Dr. Jolley, and Dr. Putrino disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The research was funded by grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Jonas and Christina af Jochnick Foundation, Leif Lundblad Family Foundation, Region Stockholm, and Erling-Persson Family Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Loss of smell, loss of taste, dyspnea, and fatigue are the four most common symptoms that health care professionals in Sweden report 8 months after mild COVID-19 illness, new evidence reveals.
according to the study.
“We see that a substantial portion of health care workers suffer from long-term symptoms after mild COVID-19,” senior author Charlotte Thålin, MD, PhD, said in an interview. She added that loss of smell and taste “may seem trivial, but have a negative impact on work, social, and home life in the long run.”
The study is noteworthy not only for tracking the COVID-19-related experiences of health care workers over time, but also for what it did not find. There was no increased prevalence of cognitive issues – including memory or concentration – that others have linked to what’s often called long-haul COVID-19.
The research letter was published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA.
“Even if you are young and previously healthy, a mild COVID-19 infection may result in long-term consequences,” said Dr. Thålin, from the department of clinical sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
The researchers did not observe an increased risk for long-term symptoms after asymptomatic COVID-19.
Adding to existing evidence
This research letter “adds to the growing body of literature showing that people recovering from COVID have reported a diverse array of symptoms lasting for months after initial infection,” Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, said in an interview. She is physician faculty lead at the University of California, San Francisco Post-COVID OPTIMAL Clinic.
Previous research revealed severe long-term symptoms, including heart palpitations and neurologic impairments, among people hospitalized with COVID-19. However, “there is limited data on the long-term effects after mild COVID-19, and these studies are often hampered by selection bias and without proper control groups,” Dr. Thålin said.
The absence of these more severe symptoms after mild COVID-19 is “reassuring,” she added.
The current findings are part of the ongoing COMMUNITY (COVID-19 Biomarker and Immunity) study looking at long-term immunity. Health care professionals enrolled in the research between April 15 and May 8, 2020, and have initial blood tests repeated every 4 months.
Dr. Thålin, lead author Sebastian Havervall, MD, and their colleagues compared symptom reporting between 323 hospital employees who had mild COVID-19 at least 8 months earlier with 1,072 employees who did not have COVID-19 throughout the study.
The results show that 26% of those who had COVID-19 previously had at least one moderate to severe symptom that lasted more than 2 months, compared with 9% in the control group.
The group with a history of mild COVID-19 was a median 43 years old and 83% were women. The controls were a median 47 years old and 86% were women.
“These data mirror what we have seen across long-term cohorts of patients with COVID-19 infection. Notably, mild illness among previously healthy individuals may be associated with long-term persistent symptoms,” Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist specializing in critical care at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and director of the Post-COVID Clinic, said in an interview.
“In this cohort, similar to others, this seems to be more pronounced in women,” Dr. Jolley added.
Key findings on functioning
At 8 months, using a smartphone app, participants reported presence, duration, and severity of 23 predefined symptoms. Researchers used the Sheehan Disability Scale to gauge functional impairment.
A total of 11% participants reported at least one symptom that negatively affected work or social or home life at 8 months versus only 2% of the control group.
Seropositive participants were almost two times more likely to report that their long-term symptoms moderately to markedly disrupted their work life, 8% versus 4% of seronegative healthcare workers (relative risk, 1.8; 95%; confidence interval, 1.2-2.9).
Disruptions to a social life from long-term symptoms were 2.5 times more likely in the seropositive group. A total 15% of this cohort reported moderate to marked effects, compared with 6% of the seronegative group (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).
The researchers also inquired about home life disruptions, which were reported by 12% of the seropositive health care workers and 5% of the seronegative participants (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4).
The study’s findings “tracks with a lot of the other work we’re seeing,” David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview. He and his colleagues are responsible for managing the rehabilitation of patients with long COVID.
Interestingly, the proportion of people with persistent symptoms might be underestimated in this research, Dr. Putrino said. “Antibodies are not an entirely reliable biomarker. So what the researchers are using here is the most conservative measure of who may have had the virus.”
Potential recall bias and the subjective rating of symptoms were possible limitations of the study.
When asked to speculate why researchers did not find higher levels of cognitive dysfunction, Dr. Putrino said that self-reports are generally less reliable than measures like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting cognitive impairment.
Furthermore, unlike many of the people with long-haul COVID-19 whom he treats clinically – ones who are “really struggling” – the health care workers studied in Sweden are functioning well enough to perform their duties at the hospital, so the study population may not represent the population at large.
More research required
“More research needs to be conducted to investigate the mechanisms underlying these persistent symptoms, and several centers, including UCSF, are conducting research into why this might be,” Dr. Santhosh said.
Dr. Thålin and colleagues plan to continue following participants. “The primary aim of the COMMUNITY study is to investigate long-term immunity after COVID-19, but we will also look into possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms behind COVID-19–related long-term symptoms,” she said.
“I hope to see that taste and smell will return,” Dr. Thålin added.
“We’re really just starting to understand the long-term effects of COVID-19,” Putrino said. “This is something we’re going to see a lot of moving forward.”
Dr. Thålin, Dr. Santhosh, Dr. Jolley, and Dr. Putrino disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The research was funded by grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Jonas and Christina af Jochnick Foundation, Leif Lundblad Family Foundation, Region Stockholm, and Erling-Persson Family Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Loss of smell, loss of taste, dyspnea, and fatigue are the four most common symptoms that health care professionals in Sweden report 8 months after mild COVID-19 illness, new evidence reveals.
according to the study.
“We see that a substantial portion of health care workers suffer from long-term symptoms after mild COVID-19,” senior author Charlotte Thålin, MD, PhD, said in an interview. She added that loss of smell and taste “may seem trivial, but have a negative impact on work, social, and home life in the long run.”
The study is noteworthy not only for tracking the COVID-19-related experiences of health care workers over time, but also for what it did not find. There was no increased prevalence of cognitive issues – including memory or concentration – that others have linked to what’s often called long-haul COVID-19.
The research letter was published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA.
“Even if you are young and previously healthy, a mild COVID-19 infection may result in long-term consequences,” said Dr. Thålin, from the department of clinical sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
The researchers did not observe an increased risk for long-term symptoms after asymptomatic COVID-19.
Adding to existing evidence
This research letter “adds to the growing body of literature showing that people recovering from COVID have reported a diverse array of symptoms lasting for months after initial infection,” Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, said in an interview. She is physician faculty lead at the University of California, San Francisco Post-COVID OPTIMAL Clinic.
Previous research revealed severe long-term symptoms, including heart palpitations and neurologic impairments, among people hospitalized with COVID-19. However, “there is limited data on the long-term effects after mild COVID-19, and these studies are often hampered by selection bias and without proper control groups,” Dr. Thålin said.
The absence of these more severe symptoms after mild COVID-19 is “reassuring,” she added.
The current findings are part of the ongoing COMMUNITY (COVID-19 Biomarker and Immunity) study looking at long-term immunity. Health care professionals enrolled in the research between April 15 and May 8, 2020, and have initial blood tests repeated every 4 months.
Dr. Thålin, lead author Sebastian Havervall, MD, and their colleagues compared symptom reporting between 323 hospital employees who had mild COVID-19 at least 8 months earlier with 1,072 employees who did not have COVID-19 throughout the study.
The results show that 26% of those who had COVID-19 previously had at least one moderate to severe symptom that lasted more than 2 months, compared with 9% in the control group.
The group with a history of mild COVID-19 was a median 43 years old and 83% were women. The controls were a median 47 years old and 86% were women.
“These data mirror what we have seen across long-term cohorts of patients with COVID-19 infection. Notably, mild illness among previously healthy individuals may be associated with long-term persistent symptoms,” Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist specializing in critical care at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and director of the Post-COVID Clinic, said in an interview.
“In this cohort, similar to others, this seems to be more pronounced in women,” Dr. Jolley added.
Key findings on functioning
At 8 months, using a smartphone app, participants reported presence, duration, and severity of 23 predefined symptoms. Researchers used the Sheehan Disability Scale to gauge functional impairment.
A total of 11% participants reported at least one symptom that negatively affected work or social or home life at 8 months versus only 2% of the control group.
Seropositive participants were almost two times more likely to report that their long-term symptoms moderately to markedly disrupted their work life, 8% versus 4% of seronegative healthcare workers (relative risk, 1.8; 95%; confidence interval, 1.2-2.9).
Disruptions to a social life from long-term symptoms were 2.5 times more likely in the seropositive group. A total 15% of this cohort reported moderate to marked effects, compared with 6% of the seronegative group (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).
The researchers also inquired about home life disruptions, which were reported by 12% of the seropositive health care workers and 5% of the seronegative participants (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4).
The study’s findings “tracks with a lot of the other work we’re seeing,” David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview. He and his colleagues are responsible for managing the rehabilitation of patients with long COVID.
Interestingly, the proportion of people with persistent symptoms might be underestimated in this research, Dr. Putrino said. “Antibodies are not an entirely reliable biomarker. So what the researchers are using here is the most conservative measure of who may have had the virus.”
Potential recall bias and the subjective rating of symptoms were possible limitations of the study.
When asked to speculate why researchers did not find higher levels of cognitive dysfunction, Dr. Putrino said that self-reports are generally less reliable than measures like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting cognitive impairment.
Furthermore, unlike many of the people with long-haul COVID-19 whom he treats clinically – ones who are “really struggling” – the health care workers studied in Sweden are functioning well enough to perform their duties at the hospital, so the study population may not represent the population at large.
More research required
“More research needs to be conducted to investigate the mechanisms underlying these persistent symptoms, and several centers, including UCSF, are conducting research into why this might be,” Dr. Santhosh said.
Dr. Thålin and colleagues plan to continue following participants. “The primary aim of the COMMUNITY study is to investigate long-term immunity after COVID-19, but we will also look into possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms behind COVID-19–related long-term symptoms,” she said.
“I hope to see that taste and smell will return,” Dr. Thålin added.
“We’re really just starting to understand the long-term effects of COVID-19,” Putrino said. “This is something we’re going to see a lot of moving forward.”
Dr. Thålin, Dr. Santhosh, Dr. Jolley, and Dr. Putrino disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The research was funded by grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Jonas and Christina af Jochnick Foundation, Leif Lundblad Family Foundation, Region Stockholm, and Erling-Persson Family Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About one in five clinicians considers quitting because of pandemic
a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.
About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.
“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”
“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.
“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”
“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
When the pandemic hits home
A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.
“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”
To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.
Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”
Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.
The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.
A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
COVID-19 career concerns
Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.
The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.
Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.
“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.
Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.
“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.
“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.
Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
Potential solutions
“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.
Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.
Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.
“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”
The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.
About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.
“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”
“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.
“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”
“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
When the pandemic hits home
A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.
“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”
To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.
Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”
Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.
The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.
A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
COVID-19 career concerns
Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.
The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.
Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.
“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.
Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.
“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.
“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.
Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
Potential solutions
“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.
Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.
Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.
“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”
The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.
About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.
“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”
“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.
“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”
“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
When the pandemic hits home
A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.
“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”
To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.
Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”
Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.
The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.
A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
COVID-19 career concerns
Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.
The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.
Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.
“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.
Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.
“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.
“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.
Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
Potential solutions
“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.
Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.
Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.
“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”
The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Excess deaths jump 23% in U.S. in 2020, mostly because of COVID-19
The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.
For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.
At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.
“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.
COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
More than half a million excess deaths
Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.
Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.
Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.
Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.
In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States.
Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
‘Massive’ excessive mortality
“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”
Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.
For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.
At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.
“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.
COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
More than half a million excess deaths
Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.
Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.
Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.
Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.
In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States.
Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
‘Massive’ excessive mortality
“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”
Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States saw nearly 23% more deaths than expected during the first 9 months of the pandemic, and almost three-quarters of those deaths involved COVID-19.
For comparison, the death rate increased by 2.5% or less annually in recent years.
At the same time, rates of deaths from heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and diabetes also increased from March 1, 2020, to Jan. 2, 2021, especially during COVID-19 surges.
“Excess deaths surged in the east in April, followed by extended summer and early winter surges concentrated in Southern and Western states, respectively. Many of these states weakly embraced, or discouraged, pandemic control measures and lifted restrictions earlier than other states,” lead author Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, from the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online April 2, 2021, in JAMA.
COVID-19 mortality included all deaths for which it was cited as an underlying or contributing cause in records from the District of Columbia and 49 states. North Carolina was excluded for insufficient data.
More than half a million excess deaths
Between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, the United States experienced 2,801,439 deaths, or 522,368 excess deaths. A total 72.4% of these events were attributed to COVID-19.
Not all racial and ethnic groups were equally represented. For example, the rate of excess deaths was higher among non-Hispanic Black populations, at 208.4 deaths per 100,000. Non-Hispanic White populations experienced 157 deaths per 100,000, and Hispanic populations experienced 139.8 deaths per 100,000.
Further, non-Hispanic Black individuals accounted for 16.9% of the excess deaths but only 12.5% of the U.S. population, which reflects “racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality,” the authors noted.
Not adjusting for population aging is a potential limitation, as was reliance on provisional data and the likelihood that some death certificates were inaccurate.
In February, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, stated that political divisions likely played a role in the 500,000-plus COVID-19–related deaths in the United States.
Then a report came out on March 26 indicating that a different U.S. response to the pandemic could have avoided almost 400,000 COVID-19 deaths. In addition, an April 1 study in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that COVID-19 is now the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer.
‘Massive’ excessive mortality
“There is no more visible or alarming manifestation of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic than the deaths it has caused. In this issue of JAMA, Dr. Woolf and colleagues provide updated analyses that demonstrate that the excess mortality in the U.S. between March 1, 2020, and Jan. 2, 2021, has been massive,” Alan Garber, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“It seems likely that COVID-19 will have contributed to nearly as many deaths in the U.S. as the great influenza pandemic of 1918, and more than in any influenza outbreak in the U.S. since then,” added Dr. Garber, provost of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
This study of excess mortality illustrates what is at stake, he added. “Despite the scientific, medical and public health progress of recent decades, the loss of life attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic exceeds the mortality of major wars. No nation should squander this opportunity to do what it takes to prepare for the next one.”
Dr. Woolf and Dr. Garber disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The National Institutes of Health supported the research through its National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute on Aging.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Less sleep, more burnout linked to higher COVID-19 risk, study shows
among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.
For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.
Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.
“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.
“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.
This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.
The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.
The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.
The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.
In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).
Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.
The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?
Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.
Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).
The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.
All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.
Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).
Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
More burnout, greater risk
The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.
Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.
In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.
What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.
“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
Strengths and limitations
Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.
Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.
“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
Insomnia a common challenge
A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.
“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.
More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?
“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.
“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”
Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.
For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.
Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.
“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.
“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.
This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.
The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.
The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.
The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.
In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).
Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.
The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?
Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.
Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).
The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.
All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.
Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).
Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
More burnout, greater risk
The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.
Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.
In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.
What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.
“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
Strengths and limitations
Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.
Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.
“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
Insomnia a common challenge
A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.
“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.
More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?
“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.
“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”
Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.
For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.
Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.
“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.
“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.
This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.
The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.
The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.
The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.
In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).
Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.
The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?
Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.
Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).
The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.
All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.
Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).
Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
More burnout, greater risk
The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.
Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.
In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.
What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.
“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
Strengths and limitations
Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.
Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.
“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
Insomnia a common challenge
A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.
“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.
More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?
“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.
“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”
Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Update: U.S. regulators question AstraZeneca vaccine trial data
Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.
The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.
“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.
The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.
The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.
Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.
“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.
Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.
“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”
With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
Risk of thrombosis addressed
Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency
“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.
“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”
“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.
Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.
The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.
The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.
The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.
The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.
In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.
Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
‘Robust’ findings
“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.
Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.
“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.
“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
Efficacy against variants?
Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.
“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.
“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.
Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.
The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.
This article was updated March 23, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.
The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.
“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.
The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.
The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.
Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.
“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.
Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.
“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”
With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
Risk of thrombosis addressed
Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency
“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.
“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”
“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.
Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.
The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.
The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.
The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.
The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.
In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.
Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
‘Robust’ findings
“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.
Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.
“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.
“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
Efficacy against variants?
Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.
“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.
“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.
Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.
The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.
This article was updated March 23, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.
The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.
“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.
The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.
The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.
Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.
“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.
Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.
“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”
With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
Risk of thrombosis addressed
Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency
“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.
“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”
“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.
Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.
The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.
The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.
The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.
The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.
In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.
Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
‘Robust’ findings
“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.
Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.
“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.
“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
Efficacy against variants?
Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.
“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.
“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.
Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.
The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.
This article was updated March 23, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
COVID-19 virus reinfections rare; riskiest after age 65
When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.
Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.
“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
Verifying the need for vaccination
“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.
The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.
“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.
“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.
Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.
Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.
By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.
“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”
Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Age alters immunity?
“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.
The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.
As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
Variants not included
To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.
A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”
Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.
“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.
The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.
Cause for alarm?
Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”
Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
More research needed
The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”
Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.
No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.
Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.
“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
Verifying the need for vaccination
“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.
The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.
“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.
“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.
Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.
Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.
By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.
“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”
Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Age alters immunity?
“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.
The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.
As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
Variants not included
To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.
A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”
Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.
“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.
The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.
Cause for alarm?
Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”
Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
More research needed
The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”
Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.
No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.
Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.
“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
Verifying the need for vaccination
“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.
The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.
“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.
“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.
Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.
Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.
By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.
“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”
Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Age alters immunity?
“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.
The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.
As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
Variants not included
To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.
A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”
Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.
“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.
The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.
Cause for alarm?
Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”
Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
More research needed
The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”
Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.
No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Delay surgery by 7 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis, study shows
Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.
Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.
The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.
Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.
“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).
“This should be an area for future research,” he added.
The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.
Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis
Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:
- 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
- 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
- 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
- 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..
For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
The ‘why’ remains unknown
The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”
Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.
In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.
“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
‘An important study’
“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.
The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.
“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.
Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”
Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.
Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.
The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.
Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.
“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).
“This should be an area for future research,” he added.
The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.
Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis
Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:
- 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
- 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
- 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
- 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..
For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
The ‘why’ remains unknown
The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”
Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.
In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.
“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
‘An important study’
“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.
The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.
“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.
Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”
Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.
Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.
The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.
Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.
“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).
“This should be an area for future research,” he added.
The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.
Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis
Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:
- 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
- 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
- 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
- 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..
For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
The ‘why’ remains unknown
The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”
Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.
In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.
“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
‘An important study’
“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.
The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.
“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.
Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”
Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC data strengthen link between obesity and severe COVID
Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.
Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.
“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”
People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m2 to 25.9 kg/m2 – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.
The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Greater need for critical care
The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m2 category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.
Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.
Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.
For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.
Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
Elevated risk of dying
The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.
Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.
The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.
Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.
The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.
Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.
“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”
People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m2 to 25.9 kg/m2 – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.
The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Greater need for critical care
The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m2 category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.
Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.
Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.
For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.
Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
Elevated risk of dying
The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.
Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.
The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.
Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.
The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.
Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.
“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”
People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m2 to 25.9 kg/m2 – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.
The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Greater need for critical care
The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m2 category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.
Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.
Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.
For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.
Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
Elevated risk of dying
The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.
Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.
The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.
Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.
The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dining restrictions, mask mandates tied to less illness, death, CDC reaffirms
The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.
On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.
The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.
They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted.
The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.
COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.
Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).
This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
Masks make a difference
The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.
Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.
These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.
The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.
The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.
“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”
Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.
These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.
In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.
Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”
The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.
On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.
The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.
They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted.
The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.
COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.
Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).
This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
Masks make a difference
The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.
Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.
These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.
The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.
The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.
“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”
Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.
These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.
In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.
Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”
The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.
On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.
The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.
They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted.
The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.
COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.
Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).
This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
Masks make a difference
The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.
Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.
These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.
The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.
The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.
“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”
Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.
These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.
In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.
Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”
The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.