CHEST Physician

A recent uptick in severe respiratory illness in children may be tied to a strain of enterovirus that can cause a rare polio-like condition, according to a Health Network Alert advisory by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In August, health care providers and hospitals notified the CDC of an increase in severe respiratory illness in children who also tested positive for rhinovirus (RV) or enterovirus (EV). Additional testing revealed that some children were positive for EV-D68, which primarily causes acute respiratory illness. However, the virus has been associated with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a rare neurologic condition involving muscle weakness.

Also, in July and August 2022, surveillance networks reported an increase in EV-D68 activity compared with the same months in 2019, 2020, and 2021, the agency said in the alert. As of Aug. 30, the CDC has not received any reports of AFM beginning this year; however, spikes in EV-D68 typically come before cases of AFM, they said.

“Something we are always on the lookout for in the late summer and fall is AFM cases,” said Rick Malley, MD, of the division of infectious disease at Boston Children’s Hospital, in an interview with this news organization. “Unfortunately, we kind of expect them during enterovirus season,” he said. That season is thought to peak in the late summer and early fall.

Since the CDC began tracking AFM in August 2014, there have been 692 confirmed cases in the United States. AFM cases spiked in 2014, 2016, and 2018, mostly in young children. In 2021, there were 28 confirmed cases across 15 states. The CDC did not specify the age of those cases, but in 2018 – when EV-D68 most recently circulated at high levels – the median age of children who visited the emergency department or were hospitalized for EV-D68–associated respiratory illness was 3 years.

“[AFM] can be very severe and it can be very scary for the parents of children who have it,” Dr. Malley said, “but given the prevalence of enteroviruses in the community, you have to conclude it’s a relatively rare event in susceptible individuals. Why some get it and others don’t is unfortunately unclear at this moment.”

The CDC recommends that providers consider EV-D68 as a possible cause for acute, severe respiratory illness in children. If the cause of a respiratory illness in a severely ill patient is not clear, health professionals should test for RVs and EVs, if this is not already part of a typical diagnostic workflow, the agency said. Currently, there are no vaccines or specific treatments for RV or EV, and the CDC recommends supportive clinical management.

The advisory also urged providers to “strongly consider AFM in patients with acute flaccid limb weakness, especially after respiratory illness or fever, and between the months of August and November 2022.”

For any patient presenting with possible AFM, clinicians should collect samples from multiple sources, including cerebrospinal fluid, serum, stool, and a nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. Samples should be taken “as early as possible and preferably on the day of onset of limb weakness,” the alert said. There is currently no specific medicine for AFM, the agency said, though recommended interventions may vary for each patient.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent uptick in severe respiratory illness in children may be tied to a strain of enterovirus that can cause a rare polio-like condition, according to a Health Network Alert advisory by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In August, health care providers and hospitals notified the CDC of an increase in severe respiratory illness in children who also tested positive for rhinovirus (RV) or enterovirus (EV). Additional testing revealed that some children were positive for EV-D68, which primarily causes acute respiratory illness. However, the virus has been associated with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a rare neurologic condition involving muscle weakness.

Also, in July and August 2022, surveillance networks reported an increase in EV-D68 activity compared with the same months in 2019, 2020, and 2021, the agency said in the alert. As of Aug. 30, the CDC has not received any reports of AFM beginning this year; however, spikes in EV-D68 typically come before cases of AFM, they said.

“Something we are always on the lookout for in the late summer and fall is AFM cases,” said Rick Malley, MD, of the division of infectious disease at Boston Children’s Hospital, in an interview with this news organization. “Unfortunately, we kind of expect them during enterovirus season,” he said. That season is thought to peak in the late summer and early fall.

Since the CDC began tracking AFM in August 2014, there have been 692 confirmed cases in the United States. AFM cases spiked in 2014, 2016, and 2018, mostly in young children. In 2021, there were 28 confirmed cases across 15 states. The CDC did not specify the age of those cases, but in 2018 – when EV-D68 most recently circulated at high levels – the median age of children who visited the emergency department or were hospitalized for EV-D68–associated respiratory illness was 3 years.

“[AFM] can be very severe and it can be very scary for the parents of children who have it,” Dr. Malley said, “but given the prevalence of enteroviruses in the community, you have to conclude it’s a relatively rare event in susceptible individuals. Why some get it and others don’t is unfortunately unclear at this moment.”

The CDC recommends that providers consider EV-D68 as a possible cause for acute, severe respiratory illness in children. If the cause of a respiratory illness in a severely ill patient is not clear, health professionals should test for RVs and EVs, if this is not already part of a typical diagnostic workflow, the agency said. Currently, there are no vaccines or specific treatments for RV or EV, and the CDC recommends supportive clinical management.

The advisory also urged providers to “strongly consider AFM in patients with acute flaccid limb weakness, especially after respiratory illness or fever, and between the months of August and November 2022.”

For any patient presenting with possible AFM, clinicians should collect samples from multiple sources, including cerebrospinal fluid, serum, stool, and a nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. Samples should be taken “as early as possible and preferably on the day of onset of limb weakness,” the alert said. There is currently no specific medicine for AFM, the agency said, though recommended interventions may vary for each patient.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent uptick in severe respiratory illness in children may be tied to a strain of enterovirus that can cause a rare polio-like condition, according to a Health Network Alert advisory by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In August, health care providers and hospitals notified the CDC of an increase in severe respiratory illness in children who also tested positive for rhinovirus (RV) or enterovirus (EV). Additional testing revealed that some children were positive for EV-D68, which primarily causes acute respiratory illness. However, the virus has been associated with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), a rare neurologic condition involving muscle weakness.

Also, in July and August 2022, surveillance networks reported an increase in EV-D68 activity compared with the same months in 2019, 2020, and 2021, the agency said in the alert. As of Aug. 30, the CDC has not received any reports of AFM beginning this year; however, spikes in EV-D68 typically come before cases of AFM, they said.

“Something we are always on the lookout for in the late summer and fall is AFM cases,” said Rick Malley, MD, of the division of infectious disease at Boston Children’s Hospital, in an interview with this news organization. “Unfortunately, we kind of expect them during enterovirus season,” he said. That season is thought to peak in the late summer and early fall.

Since the CDC began tracking AFM in August 2014, there have been 692 confirmed cases in the United States. AFM cases spiked in 2014, 2016, and 2018, mostly in young children. In 2021, there were 28 confirmed cases across 15 states. The CDC did not specify the age of those cases, but in 2018 – when EV-D68 most recently circulated at high levels – the median age of children who visited the emergency department or were hospitalized for EV-D68–associated respiratory illness was 3 years.

“[AFM] can be very severe and it can be very scary for the parents of children who have it,” Dr. Malley said, “but given the prevalence of enteroviruses in the community, you have to conclude it’s a relatively rare event in susceptible individuals. Why some get it and others don’t is unfortunately unclear at this moment.”

The CDC recommends that providers consider EV-D68 as a possible cause for acute, severe respiratory illness in children. If the cause of a respiratory illness in a severely ill patient is not clear, health professionals should test for RVs and EVs, if this is not already part of a typical diagnostic workflow, the agency said. Currently, there are no vaccines or specific treatments for RV or EV, and the CDC recommends supportive clinical management.

The advisory also urged providers to “strongly consider AFM in patients with acute flaccid limb weakness, especially after respiratory illness or fever, and between the months of August and November 2022.”

For any patient presenting with possible AFM, clinicians should collect samples from multiple sources, including cerebrospinal fluid, serum, stool, and a nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab. Samples should be taken “as early as possible and preferably on the day of onset of limb weakness,” the alert said. There is currently no specific medicine for AFM, the agency said, though recommended interventions may vary for each patient.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New COVID boosters that target the fast-spreading Omicron strains of the virus are rolling out this week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending these bivalent mRNA shots for Americans 12 and older.

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about the shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, based on information provided by the CDC and Keri Althoff, PhD, and virologist Andrew Pekosz, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health epidemiologists.

Question: Who is eligible for the new bivalent boosters?

Answer: The CDC greenlighted the upgraded Pfizer/BioNTech shots for Americans 12 and older and the Moderna booster for those 18 and over, if they have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before.

The boosters have been redesigned to protect against the predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the virus. The Biden administration is making 160 million of the booster shots available free of charge through pharmacies, doctor’s offices, clinics, and state health departments.

Q: What about children under 12?

A: The new boosters are not approved for children under 12. Additional testing and trials need to be conducted for safety and effectiveness. But officials recommend that children 5 and above receive the primary vaccine series and be boosted with one shot. Children 6 months to under 5 years are not yet eligible for boosters.

Pfizer said it hopes to ask the Food and Drug Administration for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds in October.

Q: How do the new bivalent boosters differ from previous shots?

A: The new shots use the same mRNA technology as the prior Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines and boosters but have been upgraded to target the newer Omicron strains. The shots use mRNA created in a lab to teach our cells to produce a specific protein that triggers an immune-system response and make antibodies that help protect us from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The recipe for the new shots incorporates the so-called “spike protein” of both the original (ancestral) strain of the virus and more highly transmissible Omicron strains (BA.4, BA.5). Once your body produces these proteins, your immune system kicks into gear to mount a response.

It’s also possible – but yet to be determined – that the new bivalent boosters will offer protection against newer but less common strains known as BA.4.6 and BA.2.75.

Q: Are there any new risks or side effects associated with these boosters?

A: Health experts don’t expect to see anything beyond what has already been noted with prior mRNA vaccines, with the vast majority of recipients experiencing only mild issues such as redness from the shot, soreness, and fatigue.

Q: Do I need one of the new shots if I’ve already had past boosters or had COVID?

A: Yes. Even if you’ve been infected with COVID in the past year and/or received the prior series of primary vaccines and boosters, you should get a bivalent Omicron shot.

Doing so will give you broader immunity against COVID and also help limit the emergence of other variants. The more Americans with high immunity, the better; it makes it less likely other variants will emerge that can escape the immunity provided by vaccines and COVID infections.

Q: How long should I wait, from the time of my last shot, before getting a new booster?

A: The bivalent boosters are most effective when given after a period of time has passed between your last shot and the new one. A 2- to 3-month waiting period is the minimum, but some evidence suggests extending it out to 4-6 months might be good timing.

To determine when you should get a new booster, check out the CDC’s Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters website.

Q: What if I’ve recently had COVID?

A: There are no specific rules about a waiting period after COVID infection. But if you have been infected with the virus in the last 8 weeks, you may want to wait for 8 weeks to pass before receiving the bivalent booster to allow your immune system to get greater benefit from the shot.

Q: If I never got the original vaccines, do I need to get those shots first?

A: Yes. The bivalent vaccine has a lower dose of mRNA than the vaccines used in the primary series of vaccines, rolled out in late 2020. The bivalent vaccine is authorized for use as a booster dose and not a primary vaccine series dose.

Q: Do the Omicron-specific boosters entirely replace the other boosters?

A: Yes. The new booster shots, which target the original strain and the Omicron subvariants, are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. The FDA no longer authorizes the previous booster doses for people in the approved age groups.

Q: What if I received a non-mRNA vaccine produced by Novavax or Johnson & Johnson? Should I still get an mRNA booster?

A: You can mix and match COVID vaccines, and you are eligible to get the bivalent booster 8 weeks after completing the primary COVID vaccination series – whether that was two doses of mRNA or Novavax, or one shot of J&J.

Q: How effective are the new boosters?

A: Scientists don’t have complete effectiveness data from the bivalent vaccines yet. But because the new boosters contain mRNA from the Omicron and the original strains, they are believed to offer greater protection against COVID overall.

Cellular-level data support this, with studies showing the bivalent vaccines increase neutralizing antibodies to BA.4/BA.5 strains. Scientists regard these kinds of studies as surrogate stand-ins for clinical trials. But officials will be studying the effectiveness of the new boosters, examining to what degree they reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Q: How long will the boosters’ protection last?

A: Research shows that vaccine effectiveness eventually wanes, which is why we have the boosters. Scientists will be monitoring to see how long the protection lasts from the bivalent boosters through studies of antibody levels as well as assessments of severe COVID illnesses over time, throughout the fall and winter.

Q: Is it OK to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time?

A: Yes. In fact, it’s important to get a flu shot this year because some experts believe we could see overlapping COVID-influenza surges this fall – a phenomenon some have fancifully called a “twindemic.” Getting a flu shot and COVID booster – simultaneously, if possible – is particularly important if you’re in a high-risk group.

People who are susceptible to severe complications from COVID – such as older people, people with weakened immune systems, and those with chronic health conditions – are also especially vulnerable to severe influenza complications.

Q: Will a new booster mean I can stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID?

A: No. It’s still a good idea to mask up, keep your distance from others, avoid indoor spaces with people whose vaccine status is unknown, and take other precautions against COVID.

Although the new boosters are front of mind, it’s a good idea to also use other tools in the toolbox, as well, particularly if you have contact with someone who is older, immune-suppressed, or has a chronic condition that puts them at higher risk from COVID.

Keep in mind: The community risk of infection nationwide is still high today, with about 67,400 new cases and nearly 320 deaths reported each day in the United States, according to the latest CDC reports.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

New COVID boosters that target the fast-spreading Omicron strains of the virus are rolling out this week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending these bivalent mRNA shots for Americans 12 and older.

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about the shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, based on information provided by the CDC and Keri Althoff, PhD, and virologist Andrew Pekosz, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health epidemiologists.

Question: Who is eligible for the new bivalent boosters?

Answer: The CDC greenlighted the upgraded Pfizer/BioNTech shots for Americans 12 and older and the Moderna booster for those 18 and over, if they have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before.

The boosters have been redesigned to protect against the predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the virus. The Biden administration is making 160 million of the booster shots available free of charge through pharmacies, doctor’s offices, clinics, and state health departments.

Q: What about children under 12?

A: The new boosters are not approved for children under 12. Additional testing and trials need to be conducted for safety and effectiveness. But officials recommend that children 5 and above receive the primary vaccine series and be boosted with one shot. Children 6 months to under 5 years are not yet eligible for boosters.

Pfizer said it hopes to ask the Food and Drug Administration for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds in October.

Q: How do the new bivalent boosters differ from previous shots?

A: The new shots use the same mRNA technology as the prior Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines and boosters but have been upgraded to target the newer Omicron strains. The shots use mRNA created in a lab to teach our cells to produce a specific protein that triggers an immune-system response and make antibodies that help protect us from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The recipe for the new shots incorporates the so-called “spike protein” of both the original (ancestral) strain of the virus and more highly transmissible Omicron strains (BA.4, BA.5). Once your body produces these proteins, your immune system kicks into gear to mount a response.

It’s also possible – but yet to be determined – that the new bivalent boosters will offer protection against newer but less common strains known as BA.4.6 and BA.2.75.

Q: Are there any new risks or side effects associated with these boosters?

A: Health experts don’t expect to see anything beyond what has already been noted with prior mRNA vaccines, with the vast majority of recipients experiencing only mild issues such as redness from the shot, soreness, and fatigue.

Q: Do I need one of the new shots if I’ve already had past boosters or had COVID?

A: Yes. Even if you’ve been infected with COVID in the past year and/or received the prior series of primary vaccines and boosters, you should get a bivalent Omicron shot.

Doing so will give you broader immunity against COVID and also help limit the emergence of other variants. The more Americans with high immunity, the better; it makes it less likely other variants will emerge that can escape the immunity provided by vaccines and COVID infections.

Q: How long should I wait, from the time of my last shot, before getting a new booster?

A: The bivalent boosters are most effective when given after a period of time has passed between your last shot and the new one. A 2- to 3-month waiting period is the minimum, but some evidence suggests extending it out to 4-6 months might be good timing.

To determine when you should get a new booster, check out the CDC’s Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters website.

Q: What if I’ve recently had COVID?

A: There are no specific rules about a waiting period after COVID infection. But if you have been infected with the virus in the last 8 weeks, you may want to wait for 8 weeks to pass before receiving the bivalent booster to allow your immune system to get greater benefit from the shot.

Q: If I never got the original vaccines, do I need to get those shots first?

A: Yes. The bivalent vaccine has a lower dose of mRNA than the vaccines used in the primary series of vaccines, rolled out in late 2020. The bivalent vaccine is authorized for use as a booster dose and not a primary vaccine series dose.

Q: Do the Omicron-specific boosters entirely replace the other boosters?

A: Yes. The new booster shots, which target the original strain and the Omicron subvariants, are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. The FDA no longer authorizes the previous booster doses for people in the approved age groups.

Q: What if I received a non-mRNA vaccine produced by Novavax or Johnson & Johnson? Should I still get an mRNA booster?

A: You can mix and match COVID vaccines, and you are eligible to get the bivalent booster 8 weeks after completing the primary COVID vaccination series – whether that was two doses of mRNA or Novavax, or one shot of J&J.

Q: How effective are the new boosters?

A: Scientists don’t have complete effectiveness data from the bivalent vaccines yet. But because the new boosters contain mRNA from the Omicron and the original strains, they are believed to offer greater protection against COVID overall.

Cellular-level data support this, with studies showing the bivalent vaccines increase neutralizing antibodies to BA.4/BA.5 strains. Scientists regard these kinds of studies as surrogate stand-ins for clinical trials. But officials will be studying the effectiveness of the new boosters, examining to what degree they reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Q: How long will the boosters’ protection last?

A: Research shows that vaccine effectiveness eventually wanes, which is why we have the boosters. Scientists will be monitoring to see how long the protection lasts from the bivalent boosters through studies of antibody levels as well as assessments of severe COVID illnesses over time, throughout the fall and winter.

Q: Is it OK to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time?

A: Yes. In fact, it’s important to get a flu shot this year because some experts believe we could see overlapping COVID-influenza surges this fall – a phenomenon some have fancifully called a “twindemic.” Getting a flu shot and COVID booster – simultaneously, if possible – is particularly important if you’re in a high-risk group.

People who are susceptible to severe complications from COVID – such as older people, people with weakened immune systems, and those with chronic health conditions – are also especially vulnerable to severe influenza complications.

Q: Will a new booster mean I can stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID?

A: No. It’s still a good idea to mask up, keep your distance from others, avoid indoor spaces with people whose vaccine status is unknown, and take other precautions against COVID.

Although the new boosters are front of mind, it’s a good idea to also use other tools in the toolbox, as well, particularly if you have contact with someone who is older, immune-suppressed, or has a chronic condition that puts them at higher risk from COVID.

Keep in mind: The community risk of infection nationwide is still high today, with about 67,400 new cases and nearly 320 deaths reported each day in the United States, according to the latest CDC reports.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

New COVID boosters that target the fast-spreading Omicron strains of the virus are rolling out this week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending these bivalent mRNA shots for Americans 12 and older.

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about the shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, based on information provided by the CDC and Keri Althoff, PhD, and virologist Andrew Pekosz, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health epidemiologists.

Question: Who is eligible for the new bivalent boosters?

Answer: The CDC greenlighted the upgraded Pfizer/BioNTech shots for Americans 12 and older and the Moderna booster for those 18 and over, if they have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before.

The boosters have been redesigned to protect against the predominant BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the virus. The Biden administration is making 160 million of the booster shots available free of charge through pharmacies, doctor’s offices, clinics, and state health departments.

Q: What about children under 12?

A: The new boosters are not approved for children under 12. Additional testing and trials need to be conducted for safety and effectiveness. But officials recommend that children 5 and above receive the primary vaccine series and be boosted with one shot. Children 6 months to under 5 years are not yet eligible for boosters.

Pfizer said it hopes to ask the Food and Drug Administration for authorization in 5- to 11-year-olds in October.

Q: How do the new bivalent boosters differ from previous shots?

A: The new shots use the same mRNA technology as the prior Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines and boosters but have been upgraded to target the newer Omicron strains. The shots use mRNA created in a lab to teach our cells to produce a specific protein that triggers an immune-system response and make antibodies that help protect us from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

The recipe for the new shots incorporates the so-called “spike protein” of both the original (ancestral) strain of the virus and more highly transmissible Omicron strains (BA.4, BA.5). Once your body produces these proteins, your immune system kicks into gear to mount a response.

It’s also possible – but yet to be determined – that the new bivalent boosters will offer protection against newer but less common strains known as BA.4.6 and BA.2.75.

Q: Are there any new risks or side effects associated with these boosters?

A: Health experts don’t expect to see anything beyond what has already been noted with prior mRNA vaccines, with the vast majority of recipients experiencing only mild issues such as redness from the shot, soreness, and fatigue.

Q: Do I need one of the new shots if I’ve already had past boosters or had COVID?

A: Yes. Even if you’ve been infected with COVID in the past year and/or received the prior series of primary vaccines and boosters, you should get a bivalent Omicron shot.

Doing so will give you broader immunity against COVID and also help limit the emergence of other variants. The more Americans with high immunity, the better; it makes it less likely other variants will emerge that can escape the immunity provided by vaccines and COVID infections.

Q: How long should I wait, from the time of my last shot, before getting a new booster?

A: The bivalent boosters are most effective when given after a period of time has passed between your last shot and the new one. A 2- to 3-month waiting period is the minimum, but some evidence suggests extending it out to 4-6 months might be good timing.

To determine when you should get a new booster, check out the CDC’s Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters website.

Q: What if I’ve recently had COVID?

A: There are no specific rules about a waiting period after COVID infection. But if you have been infected with the virus in the last 8 weeks, you may want to wait for 8 weeks to pass before receiving the bivalent booster to allow your immune system to get greater benefit from the shot.

Q: If I never got the original vaccines, do I need to get those shots first?

A: Yes. The bivalent vaccine has a lower dose of mRNA than the vaccines used in the primary series of vaccines, rolled out in late 2020. The bivalent vaccine is authorized for use as a booster dose and not a primary vaccine series dose.

Q: Do the Omicron-specific boosters entirely replace the other boosters?

A: Yes. The new booster shots, which target the original strain and the Omicron subvariants, are now the only available boosters for people ages 12 and older. The FDA no longer authorizes the previous booster doses for people in the approved age groups.

Q: What if I received a non-mRNA vaccine produced by Novavax or Johnson & Johnson? Should I still get an mRNA booster?

A: You can mix and match COVID vaccines, and you are eligible to get the bivalent booster 8 weeks after completing the primary COVID vaccination series – whether that was two doses of mRNA or Novavax, or one shot of J&J.

Q: How effective are the new boosters?

A: Scientists don’t have complete effectiveness data from the bivalent vaccines yet. But because the new boosters contain mRNA from the Omicron and the original strains, they are believed to offer greater protection against COVID overall.

Cellular-level data support this, with studies showing the bivalent vaccines increase neutralizing antibodies to BA.4/BA.5 strains. Scientists regard these kinds of studies as surrogate stand-ins for clinical trials. But officials will be studying the effectiveness of the new boosters, examining to what degree they reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Q: How long will the boosters’ protection last?

A: Research shows that vaccine effectiveness eventually wanes, which is why we have the boosters. Scientists will be monitoring to see how long the protection lasts from the bivalent boosters through studies of antibody levels as well as assessments of severe COVID illnesses over time, throughout the fall and winter.

Q: Is it OK to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time?

A: Yes. In fact, it’s important to get a flu shot this year because some experts believe we could see overlapping COVID-influenza surges this fall – a phenomenon some have fancifully called a “twindemic.” Getting a flu shot and COVID booster – simultaneously, if possible – is particularly important if you’re in a high-risk group.

People who are susceptible to severe complications from COVID – such as older people, people with weakened immune systems, and those with chronic health conditions – are also especially vulnerable to severe influenza complications.

Q: Will a new booster mean I can stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID?

A: No. It’s still a good idea to mask up, keep your distance from others, avoid indoor spaces with people whose vaccine status is unknown, and take other precautions against COVID.

Although the new boosters are front of mind, it’s a good idea to also use other tools in the toolbox, as well, particularly if you have contact with someone who is older, immune-suppressed, or has a chronic condition that puts them at higher risk from COVID.

Keep in mind: The community risk of infection nationwide is still high today, with about 67,400 new cases and nearly 320 deaths reported each day in the United States, according to the latest CDC reports.A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 infection is significantly associated with chronically impaired cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR), results of a small study show.

In a small prospective study, participants who previously had COVID-19, even those with mild illness, had significantly decreased CVR, compared with never-infected individuals.

Results also showed cerebral blood flow (CBF) was greater in never-infected versus previously infected participants, and whole-brain CVR was lower in previously infected versus never-infected participants. Although CVR was also smaller in those with versus those without post-COVID neurologic conditions, the difference was not considered significant.

“It is important to remember that while our findings were statistically significant, we had a relatively small sample size – 25 total participants – and so we encourage future larger studies in this domain to see if these results are reproducible at a larger scale,” lead author Andrew Callen, MD, assistant professor of radiology, Neuroradiology Section, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“In a practical sense, it may encourage treating clinicians to be more aggressive with preventative neurovascular and cardiovascular health measures and/or screening in this patient population,” Dr. Callen said.

The findings were published online  in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
 

Endothelial dysfunction

The acute phase SARS-CoV-2 infection “is associated with strokes that have features of both vascular inflammation and thromboembolism,” the investigators note.

Moreover, following the acute phase of infection, up to three-quarters of patients “experience persistent neurologic symptoms not attributable to another diagnosis, including headache, difficulty concentrating, vision changes, disequilibrium, and fatigue,” they write.

Preliminary studies “suggest a potential role for endothelial and circulatory dysfunction” in these symptoms, they add.

The researchers note that vessel wall imaging is an MRI technique that can detect and characterize arterial vascular inflammation and may differentiate vasculitic arterial pathology from atherosclerotic pathology.

Dr. Callen conducted previous research assessing cerebral vasoreactivity in women living with HIV. He noted that this is a population at a much higher risk of stroke, compared with uninfected individuals with otherwise similar cardiovascular risk factors, even when their viral load is controlled with antiretroviral therapies.

Evidence has pointed to chronic endothelial dysfunction in these individuals, and endothelial function and dysfunction can be measured through vasoreactivity testing, Dr. Callen said.

“As the COVID pandemic progressed, not only did we observe an increased rate of stroke in individuals acutely infected with COVID, but histopathological evidence began to emerge which suggested that the COVID-19 virus had tropism to and often damaged the vascular endothelium,” he noted.

This emerging evidence prompted Dr. Callen to wonder whether “individuals previously infected with COVID might also demonstrate long-term impairment in cerebral vasoreactivity or if we might see abnormalities using high resolution vessel wall imaging.”

In the current study, 15 individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (11 women, 4 men; mean age, 43 years) were compared with 10 never-infected individuals (8 women, 2 men; mean age, 43 years) who functioned as the control group.

The previously infected individuals, of whom three had prior critical infection and 12 had prior mild infection, were assessed, on average, about 8 months after infection. Of this group, seven had various post-COVID neurologic conditions, including headache, memory impairment, insomnia, depression, disequilibrium, fatigue, personality change, phantosmias (detecting smells that aren’t present), dysgeusia (taste disorder), and tinnitus.

All participants underwent MRI and vessel wall imaging. The MRI included arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging with acetazolamide stimulus to measure CBF and calculate CVR. The vessel wall imaging examinations used a contrast-enhanced black-blood 3D T1-weighted sequence.
 

Imaging data

Prior to acetazolamide administration, the mean whole-cortex CBF did not differ significantly between never-infected and previously infected participants. However, following the acetazolamide administration, the mean whole-cortex CBF was greater in never-infected participants (73.8 mL/100 g/min vs. 60.5 mL/100 g/min, respectively; P = .04).

Moreover, the mean whole-brain CVR was greater in never-infected participants, compared with previously infected participants (27.8 mL/100 g/min vs. 19.1 mL/100 g/min; P < .001).

After adjusting for age and sex, researchers found that prior infection was associated with a lower whole-brain CVR (–8.9 mL/100 g/min; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-13.3 ml/100g/min; P < .001).

Previously infected individuals also showed significantly lower CVR, even after the researchers excluded those with prior critical illness.

A nonsignificant difference was found in previously infected participants, with smaller CVR in participants with versus without post-COVID neurologic symptoms (16.9 vs. 21.0 mL/100 g/min; P = .22).

In addition, 40% of the previously infected participants versus 10% of the never-infected participants had at least one vessel wall imaging abnormality – but the difference was not deemed significant (P = .18). Notably, “all detected vessel wall imaging abnormalities were morphologically consistent with atherosclerosis rather than vasculitis,” the investigators said.

Dr. Callen said it is “unknown whether the lack of statistical significance in the differences in vasoreactivity impairment with those living with long COVID symptoms is due to a lack of a biomechanistic correlation or due to statistical underpowering.”

If it is the latter, “it may emphasize the role of vascular health in those living with long COVID symptoms and potentially all individuals living with COVID,” he added.
 

Independent risk factor?

Commenting on the study for this article, Jared Narvid, MD, associate professor of neuroradiology, University of California, San Francisco, said it “adds to the literature suggesting a correlation between COVID-19 infection and measures of cerebrovascular abnormality.”

Dr. Narvid, who was not involved with the research, added that “although it is a small case-control study, it is well executed and should encourage scientists to further study whether COVID-19 infection represents an independent risk factor for cerebrovascular disease.”

The investigators agree. “Future studies are needed to determine the clinical implications arising from SARS-CoV-2–associated CVR impairment,” they write.

The study was funded by a University of Colorado department of radiology Faculty Development Seed Grant. The investigators and Dr. Narvid report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

COVID-19 infection is significantly associated with chronically impaired cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR), results of a small study show.

In a small prospective study, participants who previously had COVID-19, even those with mild illness, had significantly decreased CVR, compared with never-infected individuals.

Results also showed cerebral blood flow (CBF) was greater in never-infected versus previously infected participants, and whole-brain CVR was lower in previously infected versus never-infected participants. Although CVR was also smaller in those with versus those without post-COVID neurologic conditions, the difference was not considered significant.

“It is important to remember that while our findings were statistically significant, we had a relatively small sample size – 25 total participants – and so we encourage future larger studies in this domain to see if these results are reproducible at a larger scale,” lead author Andrew Callen, MD, assistant professor of radiology, Neuroradiology Section, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“In a practical sense, it may encourage treating clinicians to be more aggressive with preventative neurovascular and cardiovascular health measures and/or screening in this patient population,” Dr. Callen said.

The findings were published online  in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
 

Endothelial dysfunction

The acute phase SARS-CoV-2 infection “is associated with strokes that have features of both vascular inflammation and thromboembolism,” the investigators note.

Moreover, following the acute phase of infection, up to three-quarters of patients “experience persistent neurologic symptoms not attributable to another diagnosis, including headache, difficulty concentrating, vision changes, disequilibrium, and fatigue,” they write.

Preliminary studies “suggest a potential role for endothelial and circulatory dysfunction” in these symptoms, they add.

The researchers note that vessel wall imaging is an MRI technique that can detect and characterize arterial vascular inflammation and may differentiate vasculitic arterial pathology from atherosclerotic pathology.

Dr. Callen conducted previous research assessing cerebral vasoreactivity in women living with HIV. He noted that this is a population at a much higher risk of stroke, compared with uninfected individuals with otherwise similar cardiovascular risk factors, even when their viral load is controlled with antiretroviral therapies.

Evidence has pointed to chronic endothelial dysfunction in these individuals, and endothelial function and dysfunction can be measured through vasoreactivity testing, Dr. Callen said.

“As the COVID pandemic progressed, not only did we observe an increased rate of stroke in individuals acutely infected with COVID, but histopathological evidence began to emerge which suggested that the COVID-19 virus had tropism to and often damaged the vascular endothelium,” he noted.

This emerging evidence prompted Dr. Callen to wonder whether “individuals previously infected with COVID might also demonstrate long-term impairment in cerebral vasoreactivity or if we might see abnormalities using high resolution vessel wall imaging.”

In the current study, 15 individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (11 women, 4 men; mean age, 43 years) were compared with 10 never-infected individuals (8 women, 2 men; mean age, 43 years) who functioned as the control group.

The previously infected individuals, of whom three had prior critical infection and 12 had prior mild infection, were assessed, on average, about 8 months after infection. Of this group, seven had various post-COVID neurologic conditions, including headache, memory impairment, insomnia, depression, disequilibrium, fatigue, personality change, phantosmias (detecting smells that aren’t present), dysgeusia (taste disorder), and tinnitus.

All participants underwent MRI and vessel wall imaging. The MRI included arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging with acetazolamide stimulus to measure CBF and calculate CVR. The vessel wall imaging examinations used a contrast-enhanced black-blood 3D T1-weighted sequence.
 

Imaging data

Prior to acetazolamide administration, the mean whole-cortex CBF did not differ significantly between never-infected and previously infected participants. However, following the acetazolamide administration, the mean whole-cortex CBF was greater in never-infected participants (73.8 mL/100 g/min vs. 60.5 mL/100 g/min, respectively; P = .04).

Moreover, the mean whole-brain CVR was greater in never-infected participants, compared with previously infected participants (27.8 mL/100 g/min vs. 19.1 mL/100 g/min; P < .001).

After adjusting for age and sex, researchers found that prior infection was associated with a lower whole-brain CVR (–8.9 mL/100 g/min; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-13.3 ml/100g/min; P < .001).

Previously infected individuals also showed significantly lower CVR, even after the researchers excluded those with prior critical illness.

A nonsignificant difference was found in previously infected participants, with smaller CVR in participants with versus without post-COVID neurologic symptoms (16.9 vs. 21.0 mL/100 g/min; P = .22).

In addition, 40% of the previously infected participants versus 10% of the never-infected participants had at least one vessel wall imaging abnormality – but the difference was not deemed significant (P = .18). Notably, “all detected vessel wall imaging abnormalities were morphologically consistent with atherosclerosis rather than vasculitis,” the investigators said.

Dr. Callen said it is “unknown whether the lack of statistical significance in the differences in vasoreactivity impairment with those living with long COVID symptoms is due to a lack of a biomechanistic correlation or due to statistical underpowering.”

If it is the latter, “it may emphasize the role of vascular health in those living with long COVID symptoms and potentially all individuals living with COVID,” he added.
 

Independent risk factor?

Commenting on the study for this article, Jared Narvid, MD, associate professor of neuroradiology, University of California, San Francisco, said it “adds to the literature suggesting a correlation between COVID-19 infection and measures of cerebrovascular abnormality.”

Dr. Narvid, who was not involved with the research, added that “although it is a small case-control study, it is well executed and should encourage scientists to further study whether COVID-19 infection represents an independent risk factor for cerebrovascular disease.”

The investigators agree. “Future studies are needed to determine the clinical implications arising from SARS-CoV-2–associated CVR impairment,” they write.

The study was funded by a University of Colorado department of radiology Faculty Development Seed Grant. The investigators and Dr. Narvid report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

COVID-19 infection is significantly associated with chronically impaired cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR), results of a small study show.

In a small prospective study, participants who previously had COVID-19, even those with mild illness, had significantly decreased CVR, compared with never-infected individuals.

Results also showed cerebral blood flow (CBF) was greater in never-infected versus previously infected participants, and whole-brain CVR was lower in previously infected versus never-infected participants. Although CVR was also smaller in those with versus those without post-COVID neurologic conditions, the difference was not considered significant.

“It is important to remember that while our findings were statistically significant, we had a relatively small sample size – 25 total participants – and so we encourage future larger studies in this domain to see if these results are reproducible at a larger scale,” lead author Andrew Callen, MD, assistant professor of radiology, Neuroradiology Section, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“In a practical sense, it may encourage treating clinicians to be more aggressive with preventative neurovascular and cardiovascular health measures and/or screening in this patient population,” Dr. Callen said.

The findings were published online  in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
 

Endothelial dysfunction

The acute phase SARS-CoV-2 infection “is associated with strokes that have features of both vascular inflammation and thromboembolism,” the investigators note.

Moreover, following the acute phase of infection, up to three-quarters of patients “experience persistent neurologic symptoms not attributable to another diagnosis, including headache, difficulty concentrating, vision changes, disequilibrium, and fatigue,” they write.

Preliminary studies “suggest a potential role for endothelial and circulatory dysfunction” in these symptoms, they add.

The researchers note that vessel wall imaging is an MRI technique that can detect and characterize arterial vascular inflammation and may differentiate vasculitic arterial pathology from atherosclerotic pathology.

Dr. Callen conducted previous research assessing cerebral vasoreactivity in women living with HIV. He noted that this is a population at a much higher risk of stroke, compared with uninfected individuals with otherwise similar cardiovascular risk factors, even when their viral load is controlled with antiretroviral therapies.

Evidence has pointed to chronic endothelial dysfunction in these individuals, and endothelial function and dysfunction can be measured through vasoreactivity testing, Dr. Callen said.

“As the COVID pandemic progressed, not only did we observe an increased rate of stroke in individuals acutely infected with COVID, but histopathological evidence began to emerge which suggested that the COVID-19 virus had tropism to and often damaged the vascular endothelium,” he noted.

This emerging evidence prompted Dr. Callen to wonder whether “individuals previously infected with COVID might also demonstrate long-term impairment in cerebral vasoreactivity or if we might see abnormalities using high resolution vessel wall imaging.”

In the current study, 15 individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (11 women, 4 men; mean age, 43 years) were compared with 10 never-infected individuals (8 women, 2 men; mean age, 43 years) who functioned as the control group.

The previously infected individuals, of whom three had prior critical infection and 12 had prior mild infection, were assessed, on average, about 8 months after infection. Of this group, seven had various post-COVID neurologic conditions, including headache, memory impairment, insomnia, depression, disequilibrium, fatigue, personality change, phantosmias (detecting smells that aren’t present), dysgeusia (taste disorder), and tinnitus.

All participants underwent MRI and vessel wall imaging. The MRI included arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging with acetazolamide stimulus to measure CBF and calculate CVR. The vessel wall imaging examinations used a contrast-enhanced black-blood 3D T1-weighted sequence.
 

Imaging data

Prior to acetazolamide administration, the mean whole-cortex CBF did not differ significantly between never-infected and previously infected participants. However, following the acetazolamide administration, the mean whole-cortex CBF was greater in never-infected participants (73.8 mL/100 g/min vs. 60.5 mL/100 g/min, respectively; P = .04).

Moreover, the mean whole-brain CVR was greater in never-infected participants, compared with previously infected participants (27.8 mL/100 g/min vs. 19.1 mL/100 g/min; P < .001).

After adjusting for age and sex, researchers found that prior infection was associated with a lower whole-brain CVR (–8.9 mL/100 g/min; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-13.3 ml/100g/min; P < .001).

Previously infected individuals also showed significantly lower CVR, even after the researchers excluded those with prior critical illness.

A nonsignificant difference was found in previously infected participants, with smaller CVR in participants with versus without post-COVID neurologic symptoms (16.9 vs. 21.0 mL/100 g/min; P = .22).

In addition, 40% of the previously infected participants versus 10% of the never-infected participants had at least one vessel wall imaging abnormality – but the difference was not deemed significant (P = .18). Notably, “all detected vessel wall imaging abnormalities were morphologically consistent with atherosclerosis rather than vasculitis,” the investigators said.

Dr. Callen said it is “unknown whether the lack of statistical significance in the differences in vasoreactivity impairment with those living with long COVID symptoms is due to a lack of a biomechanistic correlation or due to statistical underpowering.”

If it is the latter, “it may emphasize the role of vascular health in those living with long COVID symptoms and potentially all individuals living with COVID,” he added.
 

Independent risk factor?

Commenting on the study for this article, Jared Narvid, MD, associate professor of neuroradiology, University of California, San Francisco, said it “adds to the literature suggesting a correlation between COVID-19 infection and measures of cerebrovascular abnormality.”

Dr. Narvid, who was not involved with the research, added that “although it is a small case-control study, it is well executed and should encourage scientists to further study whether COVID-19 infection represents an independent risk factor for cerebrovascular disease.”

The investigators agree. “Future studies are needed to determine the clinical implications arising from SARS-CoV-2–associated CVR impairment,” they write.

The study was funded by a University of Colorado department of radiology Faculty Development Seed Grant. The investigators and Dr. Narvid report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

Starting January 1, 2023, current President-Elect Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, will become the new President of the American College of Chest Physicians. Dr. Addrizzo-Harris is a pulmonary/critical care physician with an extensive background in bronchiectasis and nontuberculous mycobacterial infection and medical education working as a Professor of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Before she steps into the role of President, we spoke with Dr. Addrizzo-Harris for a glimpse into what she looks to bring to the CHEST organization.

What would you like to accomplish as President of CHEST?

For my presidency, I want to continue the great trajectory CHEST is on by focusing on increasing membership, expanding our educational offerings and advancing our communication strategies, and continuing the initiatives that strive to make diversity seamless and a part of everything we do.

As many know, I have a very strong passion for the work of the CHEST Foundation, and, throughout my presidency, I will focus on how CHEST can support and integrate with the Foundation’s goal of improving patient care – whether it’s through supporting clinical research grants, expanding patient education and advocacy events, or through funding programs like the First 5 Minutes™, which touches on strengthening the rapport and trust between clinician and patient and enhances cultural competency by building an understanding of barriers to care. I can also see increasing patient involvement in CHEST to lend a unique perspective to upcoming initiatives.

Another key focus will be to strengthen and expand our membership through many venues.

We will focus on increasing physician membership of both new members and lapsed members but will also focus on increasing membership of those other providers who help us care for our patients, including advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists and more. CHEST is already an inclusive organization to a variety of health care providers, but we can do more.

My presidency will also focus on increasing collaborations with our sister societies to find new ways to reach fellows-in-training, as well as residents and medical students who are interested in pulmonary, critical care, or sleep medicine.

Along those lines, I’m also planning a dedicated focus on providing more opportunities to fellows and early career members. The goal is to enhance communications between trainees and key thought-leaders in a way that is simple, seamless, and welcoming. CHEST already does this better than anyone else, but an expanded offering, particularly in the area of career development, can help reach even more individuals – both on a national and on an international level. One such event was our successful Young Professionals Event at the Belmont event in New York City this past June.
 

What do you consider to be the greatest strength of CHEST, and how will you build upon this during your presidency?

CHEST has many strengths, but I think our greatest is the strength of our team – our members, our faculty, our volunteer leaders, and our staff.

To build on this, my presidency will include a strong communications strategy to reach, educate, and share the variety of opportunities with our members. I want to build on some of the excellent initiatives Dr. David Schulman started this year to continue engaging and showing our newer members, or soon-to-be members how to get involved with CHEST.
 

What are some challenges facing CHEST, and how will you address these challenges?

A challenge for all associations, CHEST included, will be redefining what associations look like in the wake of a global pandemic now that virtual and hybrid learning has become a part of what we do on a day-to-day basis. What will the CHEST Annual Meeting look like 3 years from now? What will keep learners coming to a physical meeting when so much is accessible on the internet? What will keep members engaged in settings where we no longer get together in-person – like the board review that is now virtual?

This all will take a lot of strategy, which is already being worked on. It will include ideas like enhancing the networking opportunities to extend beyond the annual meeting, strengthening our international strategy, and continuing to innovate in the area of medical education.
 

And finally, what do you ask of the members and Fellows of CHEST to support you during your presidency?

I ask that everyone get involved. Please reach out if you have questions. I am (and all our leaders are) very accessible and we can connect you with the right people to get you engaged. Also, please spread the word. Tell your colleagues, trainees, etc., how great CHEST is and get them involved with CHEST too. We have so much to offer.#

Starting January 1, 2023, current President-Elect Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, will become the new President of the American College of Chest Physicians. Dr. Addrizzo-Harris is a pulmonary/critical care physician with an extensive background in bronchiectasis and nontuberculous mycobacterial infection and medical education working as a Professor of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Before she steps into the role of President, we spoke with Dr. Addrizzo-Harris for a glimpse into what she looks to bring to the CHEST organization.

What would you like to accomplish as President of CHEST?

For my presidency, I want to continue the great trajectory CHEST is on by focusing on increasing membership, expanding our educational offerings and advancing our communication strategies, and continuing the initiatives that strive to make diversity seamless and a part of everything we do.

As many know, I have a very strong passion for the work of the CHEST Foundation, and, throughout my presidency, I will focus on how CHEST can support and integrate with the Foundation’s goal of improving patient care – whether it’s through supporting clinical research grants, expanding patient education and advocacy events, or through funding programs like the First 5 Minutes™, which touches on strengthening the rapport and trust between clinician and patient and enhances cultural competency by building an understanding of barriers to care. I can also see increasing patient involvement in CHEST to lend a unique perspective to upcoming initiatives.

Another key focus will be to strengthen and expand our membership through many venues.

We will focus on increasing physician membership of both new members and lapsed members but will also focus on increasing membership of those other providers who help us care for our patients, including advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists and more. CHEST is already an inclusive organization to a variety of health care providers, but we can do more.

My presidency will also focus on increasing collaborations with our sister societies to find new ways to reach fellows-in-training, as well as residents and medical students who are interested in pulmonary, critical care, or sleep medicine.

Along those lines, I’m also planning a dedicated focus on providing more opportunities to fellows and early career members. The goal is to enhance communications between trainees and key thought-leaders in a way that is simple, seamless, and welcoming. CHEST already does this better than anyone else, but an expanded offering, particularly in the area of career development, can help reach even more individuals – both on a national and on an international level. One such event was our successful Young Professionals Event at the Belmont event in New York City this past June.
 

What do you consider to be the greatest strength of CHEST, and how will you build upon this during your presidency?

CHEST has many strengths, but I think our greatest is the strength of our team – our members, our faculty, our volunteer leaders, and our staff.

To build on this, my presidency will include a strong communications strategy to reach, educate, and share the variety of opportunities with our members. I want to build on some of the excellent initiatives Dr. David Schulman started this year to continue engaging and showing our newer members, or soon-to-be members how to get involved with CHEST.
 

What are some challenges facing CHEST, and how will you address these challenges?

A challenge for all associations, CHEST included, will be redefining what associations look like in the wake of a global pandemic now that virtual and hybrid learning has become a part of what we do on a day-to-day basis. What will the CHEST Annual Meeting look like 3 years from now? What will keep learners coming to a physical meeting when so much is accessible on the internet? What will keep members engaged in settings where we no longer get together in-person – like the board review that is now virtual?

This all will take a lot of strategy, which is already being worked on. It will include ideas like enhancing the networking opportunities to extend beyond the annual meeting, strengthening our international strategy, and continuing to innovate in the area of medical education.
 

And finally, what do you ask of the members and Fellows of CHEST to support you during your presidency?

I ask that everyone get involved. Please reach out if you have questions. I am (and all our leaders are) very accessible and we can connect you with the right people to get you engaged. Also, please spread the word. Tell your colleagues, trainees, etc., how great CHEST is and get them involved with CHEST too. We have so much to offer.#

Starting January 1, 2023, current President-Elect Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, will become the new President of the American College of Chest Physicians. Dr. Addrizzo-Harris is a pulmonary/critical care physician with an extensive background in bronchiectasis and nontuberculous mycobacterial infection and medical education working as a Professor of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Before she steps into the role of President, we spoke with Dr. Addrizzo-Harris for a glimpse into what she looks to bring to the CHEST organization.

What would you like to accomplish as President of CHEST?

For my presidency, I want to continue the great trajectory CHEST is on by focusing on increasing membership, expanding our educational offerings and advancing our communication strategies, and continuing the initiatives that strive to make diversity seamless and a part of everything we do.

As many know, I have a very strong passion for the work of the CHEST Foundation, and, throughout my presidency, I will focus on how CHEST can support and integrate with the Foundation’s goal of improving patient care – whether it’s through supporting clinical research grants, expanding patient education and advocacy events, or through funding programs like the First 5 Minutes™, which touches on strengthening the rapport and trust between clinician and patient and enhances cultural competency by building an understanding of barriers to care. I can also see increasing patient involvement in CHEST to lend a unique perspective to upcoming initiatives.

Another key focus will be to strengthen and expand our membership through many venues.

We will focus on increasing physician membership of both new members and lapsed members but will also focus on increasing membership of those other providers who help us care for our patients, including advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists and more. CHEST is already an inclusive organization to a variety of health care providers, but we can do more.

My presidency will also focus on increasing collaborations with our sister societies to find new ways to reach fellows-in-training, as well as residents and medical students who are interested in pulmonary, critical care, or sleep medicine.

Along those lines, I’m also planning a dedicated focus on providing more opportunities to fellows and early career members. The goal is to enhance communications between trainees and key thought-leaders in a way that is simple, seamless, and welcoming. CHEST already does this better than anyone else, but an expanded offering, particularly in the area of career development, can help reach even more individuals – both on a national and on an international level. One such event was our successful Young Professionals Event at the Belmont event in New York City this past June.
 

What do you consider to be the greatest strength of CHEST, and how will you build upon this during your presidency?

CHEST has many strengths, but I think our greatest is the strength of our team – our members, our faculty, our volunteer leaders, and our staff.

To build on this, my presidency will include a strong communications strategy to reach, educate, and share the variety of opportunities with our members. I want to build on some of the excellent initiatives Dr. David Schulman started this year to continue engaging and showing our newer members, or soon-to-be members how to get involved with CHEST.
 

What are some challenges facing CHEST, and how will you address these challenges?

A challenge for all associations, CHEST included, will be redefining what associations look like in the wake of a global pandemic now that virtual and hybrid learning has become a part of what we do on a day-to-day basis. What will the CHEST Annual Meeting look like 3 years from now? What will keep learners coming to a physical meeting when so much is accessible on the internet? What will keep members engaged in settings where we no longer get together in-person – like the board review that is now virtual?

This all will take a lot of strategy, which is already being worked on. It will include ideas like enhancing the networking opportunities to extend beyond the annual meeting, strengthening our international strategy, and continuing to innovate in the area of medical education.
 

And finally, what do you ask of the members and Fellows of CHEST to support you during your presidency?

I ask that everyone get involved. Please reach out if you have questions. I am (and all our leaders are) very accessible and we can connect you with the right people to get you engaged. Also, please spread the word. Tell your colleagues, trainees, etc., how great CHEST is and get them involved with CHEST too. We have so much to offer.#

Those with risk factors associated with COVID-19–related death post coronavirus vaccination should be considered a priority for COVID therapeutics and further booster doses say U.K. researchers.

The researchers have identified factors that put a person at greater risk of COVID-related death after they have completed both doses of the primary COVID vaccination schedule and a booster dose.

For their research, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS); Public Health Scotland; the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow; and the University of Edinburgh used data from the ONS Public linked data set combining the 2011 Census of England and covering 80% of the population of England. The study population included 19,473,570 individuals aged 18-100 years (mean age 60.8 years, 45.2% men, 92.0% White individuals) living in England who had completed both doses of their primary vaccination schedule and had received their mRNA booster 14 days or more prior to Dec. 31, 2021. The outcome of interest was time to death involving COVID-19 occurring between Jan. 1 and March 16, 2022.
 

Prioritization of booster doses and COVID-19 treatments

The authors highlighted how it had become “critical” to identify risk factors associated with COVID-19 death in those who had been vaccinated and pointed out that existing evidence was “based on people who have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and were infected by the Alpha or Delta variant”. They emphasized that establishing which groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 death after receiving a booster is crucial for the “prioritization of further booster doses and access to COVID-19 therapeutics.”

During the study period the authors found that there were 4,781 (0.02%) deaths involving COVID-19 and 58,020 (0.3%) deaths from other causes. Of those who died of coronavirus, the mean age was 83.3 years, and the authors highlighted how “age was the most important characteristic” associated with the risk of postbooster COVID-19 death. They added that, compared with a 50-year-old, the HR for an 80-year-old individual was 31.3 (95% confidence interval, 26.1-37.6).

They found that women were at lower risk than men with an HR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.49-0.55). An increased risk of COVID-19 death was also associated with living in a care home or in a socioeconomically deprived area.

Of note, they said that “there was no association between the risk of COVID-19 death and ethnicity, except for those of Indian background”, who they explained were at slightly elevated risk, compared with White individuals. However, they explained how the association with ethnicity was “unclear and differed from previous studies”, with their findings likely to be due “largely to the pronounced differences in vaccination uptake” between ethnic groups in previous studies.
 

Dementia concern

With regard to existing health conditions the authors commented that “most of the QCovid risk groups were associated with an increased HR of postbooster breakthrough death, except for of congenital heart disease, asthma, and prior fracture.”

Risk was particularly elevated, they said, for people with severe combined immunodeficiency (HR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.3-11.5), and they also identified several conditions associated with HRs of greater than 3, including dementia.

In July, Alzheimer’s Research UK urged the Government to boost the development and deployment of new dementia treatments having found that a significant proportion of people who died of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 were living with the condition. At the time, data published by the ONS of deaths caused by coronavirus in England and Wales in 2021 showed dementia to be the second-most common pre-existing condition.

David Thomas, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “We’ve known for some time that people with dementia have been hit disproportionately hard during the pandemic, but this new data serves as a stark reminder of the growing challenge we face in tackling the condition, and the urgent need to address it.”

The authors of the new research acknowledged the study’s limitations, notably that only data for the population living in England who were enumerated in the 2011 Census of England and Wales was included.

However, subpopulations “remain at increased risk of COVID-19 fatality” after receiving a booster vaccine during the Omicron wave, they pointed out.

“The subpopulations with the highest risk should be considered a priority for COVID-19 therapeutics and further booster doses,” they urged.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Those with risk factors associated with COVID-19–related death post coronavirus vaccination should be considered a priority for COVID therapeutics and further booster doses say U.K. researchers.

The researchers have identified factors that put a person at greater risk of COVID-related death after they have completed both doses of the primary COVID vaccination schedule and a booster dose.

For their research, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS); Public Health Scotland; the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow; and the University of Edinburgh used data from the ONS Public linked data set combining the 2011 Census of England and covering 80% of the population of England. The study population included 19,473,570 individuals aged 18-100 years (mean age 60.8 years, 45.2% men, 92.0% White individuals) living in England who had completed both doses of their primary vaccination schedule and had received their mRNA booster 14 days or more prior to Dec. 31, 2021. The outcome of interest was time to death involving COVID-19 occurring between Jan. 1 and March 16, 2022.
 

Prioritization of booster doses and COVID-19 treatments

The authors highlighted how it had become “critical” to identify risk factors associated with COVID-19 death in those who had been vaccinated and pointed out that existing evidence was “based on people who have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and were infected by the Alpha or Delta variant”. They emphasized that establishing which groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 death after receiving a booster is crucial for the “prioritization of further booster doses and access to COVID-19 therapeutics.”

During the study period the authors found that there were 4,781 (0.02%) deaths involving COVID-19 and 58,020 (0.3%) deaths from other causes. Of those who died of coronavirus, the mean age was 83.3 years, and the authors highlighted how “age was the most important characteristic” associated with the risk of postbooster COVID-19 death. They added that, compared with a 50-year-old, the HR for an 80-year-old individual was 31.3 (95% confidence interval, 26.1-37.6).

They found that women were at lower risk than men with an HR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.49-0.55). An increased risk of COVID-19 death was also associated with living in a care home or in a socioeconomically deprived area.

Of note, they said that “there was no association between the risk of COVID-19 death and ethnicity, except for those of Indian background”, who they explained were at slightly elevated risk, compared with White individuals. However, they explained how the association with ethnicity was “unclear and differed from previous studies”, with their findings likely to be due “largely to the pronounced differences in vaccination uptake” between ethnic groups in previous studies.
 

Dementia concern

With regard to existing health conditions the authors commented that “most of the QCovid risk groups were associated with an increased HR of postbooster breakthrough death, except for of congenital heart disease, asthma, and prior fracture.”

Risk was particularly elevated, they said, for people with severe combined immunodeficiency (HR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.3-11.5), and they also identified several conditions associated with HRs of greater than 3, including dementia.

In July, Alzheimer’s Research UK urged the Government to boost the development and deployment of new dementia treatments having found that a significant proportion of people who died of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 were living with the condition. At the time, data published by the ONS of deaths caused by coronavirus in England and Wales in 2021 showed dementia to be the second-most common pre-existing condition.

David Thomas, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “We’ve known for some time that people with dementia have been hit disproportionately hard during the pandemic, but this new data serves as a stark reminder of the growing challenge we face in tackling the condition, and the urgent need to address it.”

The authors of the new research acknowledged the study’s limitations, notably that only data for the population living in England who were enumerated in the 2011 Census of England and Wales was included.

However, subpopulations “remain at increased risk of COVID-19 fatality” after receiving a booster vaccine during the Omicron wave, they pointed out.

“The subpopulations with the highest risk should be considered a priority for COVID-19 therapeutics and further booster doses,” they urged.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Those with risk factors associated with COVID-19–related death post coronavirus vaccination should be considered a priority for COVID therapeutics and further booster doses say U.K. researchers.

The researchers have identified factors that put a person at greater risk of COVID-related death after they have completed both doses of the primary COVID vaccination schedule and a booster dose.

For their research, published in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS); Public Health Scotland; the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow; and the University of Edinburgh used data from the ONS Public linked data set combining the 2011 Census of England and covering 80% of the population of England. The study population included 19,473,570 individuals aged 18-100 years (mean age 60.8 years, 45.2% men, 92.0% White individuals) living in England who had completed both doses of their primary vaccination schedule and had received their mRNA booster 14 days or more prior to Dec. 31, 2021. The outcome of interest was time to death involving COVID-19 occurring between Jan. 1 and March 16, 2022.
 

Prioritization of booster doses and COVID-19 treatments

The authors highlighted how it had become “critical” to identify risk factors associated with COVID-19 death in those who had been vaccinated and pointed out that existing evidence was “based on people who have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and were infected by the Alpha or Delta variant”. They emphasized that establishing which groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 death after receiving a booster is crucial for the “prioritization of further booster doses and access to COVID-19 therapeutics.”

During the study period the authors found that there were 4,781 (0.02%) deaths involving COVID-19 and 58,020 (0.3%) deaths from other causes. Of those who died of coronavirus, the mean age was 83.3 years, and the authors highlighted how “age was the most important characteristic” associated with the risk of postbooster COVID-19 death. They added that, compared with a 50-year-old, the HR for an 80-year-old individual was 31.3 (95% confidence interval, 26.1-37.6).

They found that women were at lower risk than men with an HR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.49-0.55). An increased risk of COVID-19 death was also associated with living in a care home or in a socioeconomically deprived area.

Of note, they said that “there was no association between the risk of COVID-19 death and ethnicity, except for those of Indian background”, who they explained were at slightly elevated risk, compared with White individuals. However, they explained how the association with ethnicity was “unclear and differed from previous studies”, with their findings likely to be due “largely to the pronounced differences in vaccination uptake” between ethnic groups in previous studies.
 

Dementia concern

With regard to existing health conditions the authors commented that “most of the QCovid risk groups were associated with an increased HR of postbooster breakthrough death, except for of congenital heart disease, asthma, and prior fracture.”

Risk was particularly elevated, they said, for people with severe combined immunodeficiency (HR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.3-11.5), and they also identified several conditions associated with HRs of greater than 3, including dementia.

In July, Alzheimer’s Research UK urged the Government to boost the development and deployment of new dementia treatments having found that a significant proportion of people who died of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 were living with the condition. At the time, data published by the ONS of deaths caused by coronavirus in England and Wales in 2021 showed dementia to be the second-most common pre-existing condition.

David Thomas, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “We’ve known for some time that people with dementia have been hit disproportionately hard during the pandemic, but this new data serves as a stark reminder of the growing challenge we face in tackling the condition, and the urgent need to address it.”

The authors of the new research acknowledged the study’s limitations, notably that only data for the population living in England who were enumerated in the 2011 Census of England and Wales was included.

However, subpopulations “remain at increased risk of COVID-19 fatality” after receiving a booster vaccine during the Omicron wave, they pointed out.

“The subpopulations with the highest risk should be considered a priority for COVID-19 therapeutics and further booster doses,” they urged.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

New research shows that “polypills” can prevent a combination of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths among patients who have recently experienced a myocardial infarction.

But results from the SECURE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also raise questions.

How do the polypills reduce cardiovascular problems? And will they ever be available in the United States?

Questions about how they work center on a mystery in the trial data: the polypill – containing aspirin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin – apparently conferred substantial cardiovascular protection while producing average blood pressure and lipid levels that were virtually the same as with usual care.

As to when polypills will be available, the answer may hinge on whether companies, government agencies, or philanthropic foundations come to see making and paying for such treatments – combinations of typically inexpensive generic drugs in a single pill for the sake of convenience and greater adherence – as financially worthwhile.
 

A matter of adherence?

In the SECURE trial, presented late August at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona, investigators randomly assigned 2,499 patients with an MI in the previous 6 months to receive usual care or a polypill.

Patients in the usual-care group typically received the same types of treatments included the polypill, only taken separately. Different versions of the polypill were available to allow for titration to tolerated doses of the component medications: aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 mg or 40 mg).

Researchers used the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale to gauge participants’ adherence to their medication regimen and found the polypill group was more adherent. Patients who received the polypill were more likely to have a high level of adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%), they reported. (The Morisky tool is the subject of some controversy because of aggressive licensing tactics of its creator.)

The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent revascularization was significantly less likely in the polypill group during a median of 3 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .02).

“A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1,237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1,229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group,” the researchers report.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Valentin Fuster, MD, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who led the study, said at ESC 2022.

Still, some clinicians were left scratching their heads by the lack of difference between treatment groups in average blood pressure and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

In the group that received the polypill, average systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 24 months were 135.2 mmHg and 74.8 mmHg, respectively. In the group that received usual care, those values were 135.5 mmHg and 74.9 mmHg, respectively.

Likewise, “no substantial differences were found in LDL-cholesterol levels over time between the groups, with a mean value at 24 months of 67.7 mg/dL in the polypill group and 67.2 mg/dL in the usual-care group,” according to the researchers.

One explanation for the findings is that greater adherence led to beneficial effects that were not reflected in lipid and blood pressure measurements, the investigators said. Alternatively, the open-label trial design could have led to different health behaviors between groups, they suggested.

Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she loves the idea of polypills. But she wonders about the lack of difference in blood pressure and lipids in SECURE.

Dr. Gulati said she sees in practice how medication adherence and measurements of blood pressure and lipids typically go hand in hand.

When a patient initially responds to a medication, but then their LDL cholesterol goes up later, “my first question is, ‘Are you still taking your medication or how frequently are you taking it?’” Dr. Gulati said in an interview. “And I get all kinds of answers.”

“If you are more adherent, why wouldn’t your LDL actually be lower, and why wouldn’t your blood pressure be lower?” she asked.
 

Can the results be replicated?

Ethan J. Weiss, MD, a cardiologist and volunteer associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the SECURE results are “spectacular,” but the seeming disconnect with the biomarker measurements “doesn’t make for a clean story.”

“It just seems like if you are making an argument that this is a way to improve compliance ... you would see some evidence of improved compliance objectively” in the biomarker readings, Dr. Weiss said.

Trying to understand how the polypill worked requires more imagination. “Or it makes you just say, ‘Who cares what the mechanism is?’ These people did a lot better, full stop, and that’s all that matters,” he said.

Dr. Weiss said he expects some degree of replication of the results may be needed before practice changes.

To Steven E. Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, the results “don’t make any sense.”

“If they got the same results on the biomarkers that the pill was designed to intervene upon, why are the [primary outcome] results different? It’s completely unexplained,” Dr. Nissen said.

In general, Dr. Nissen has not been an advocate of the polypill approach in higher-income countries.

“Medicine is all about customization of therapy,” he said. “Not everybody needs blood pressure lowering. Not everybody needs the same intensity of LDL reduction. We spend much of our lives seeing patients and treating their blood pressure, and if it doesn’t come down adequately, giving them a higher dose or adding another agent.”

Polypills might be reasonable for primary prevention in countries where people have less access to health care resources, he added. In such settings, a low-cost, simple treatment strategy might have benefit.

But Dr. Nissen still doesn’t see a role for a polypill in secondary prevention.

“I think we have to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look very carefully at the science and try to understand whether this, in fact, is sensible,” he said. “We may need another study to see if this can be replicated.”

For Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, the results of the SECURE trial offer an opportunity to rekindle conversations about the use of polypills for cardiovascular protection. These conversations and studies have been taking place for nearly two decades.

Dr. Kazi, associate director of the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, has used models to study the expected cost-effectiveness of polypills in various countries.

Although polypills can improve patients’ adherence to their prescribed medications, Dr. Kazi and colleagues have found that treatment gaps are “often at the physician level,” with many patients not prescribed all of the medications from which they could benefit.

Availability of polypills could help address those gaps. At the same time, many patients, even those with higher incomes, may have a strong preference for taking a single pill.

Dr. Kazi’s research also shows that a polypill approach may be more economically attractive as countries develop because successful treatment averts cardiovascular events that are costlier to treat.

“In the United States, in order for this to work, we would need a polypill that is both available widely but also affordable,” Dr. Kazi said. “It is going to require a visionary mover” to make that happen.

That could include philanthropic foundations. But it could also be a business opportunity for a company like Barcelona-based Ferrer, which provided the polypills for the SECURE trial.

The clinical and economic evidence in support of polypills has been compelling, Dr. Kazi said: “We have to get on with the business of implementing something that is effective and has the potential to greatly improve population health at scale.” 

The SECURE trial was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program and coordinated by the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC). Ferrer International provided the polypill that was used in the trial. CNIC receives royalties for sales of the polypill from Ferrer. Dr. Weiss is starting a biotech company unrelated to this area of research.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research shows that “polypills” can prevent a combination of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths among patients who have recently experienced a myocardial infarction.

But results from the SECURE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also raise questions.

How do the polypills reduce cardiovascular problems? And will they ever be available in the United States?

Questions about how they work center on a mystery in the trial data: the polypill – containing aspirin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin – apparently conferred substantial cardiovascular protection while producing average blood pressure and lipid levels that were virtually the same as with usual care.

As to when polypills will be available, the answer may hinge on whether companies, government agencies, or philanthropic foundations come to see making and paying for such treatments – combinations of typically inexpensive generic drugs in a single pill for the sake of convenience and greater adherence – as financially worthwhile.
 

A matter of adherence?

In the SECURE trial, presented late August at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona, investigators randomly assigned 2,499 patients with an MI in the previous 6 months to receive usual care or a polypill.

Patients in the usual-care group typically received the same types of treatments included the polypill, only taken separately. Different versions of the polypill were available to allow for titration to tolerated doses of the component medications: aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 mg or 40 mg).

Researchers used the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale to gauge participants’ adherence to their medication regimen and found the polypill group was more adherent. Patients who received the polypill were more likely to have a high level of adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%), they reported. (The Morisky tool is the subject of some controversy because of aggressive licensing tactics of its creator.)

The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent revascularization was significantly less likely in the polypill group during a median of 3 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .02).

“A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1,237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1,229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group,” the researchers report.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Valentin Fuster, MD, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who led the study, said at ESC 2022.

Still, some clinicians were left scratching their heads by the lack of difference between treatment groups in average blood pressure and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

In the group that received the polypill, average systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 24 months were 135.2 mmHg and 74.8 mmHg, respectively. In the group that received usual care, those values were 135.5 mmHg and 74.9 mmHg, respectively.

Likewise, “no substantial differences were found in LDL-cholesterol levels over time between the groups, with a mean value at 24 months of 67.7 mg/dL in the polypill group and 67.2 mg/dL in the usual-care group,” according to the researchers.

One explanation for the findings is that greater adherence led to beneficial effects that were not reflected in lipid and blood pressure measurements, the investigators said. Alternatively, the open-label trial design could have led to different health behaviors between groups, they suggested.

Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she loves the idea of polypills. But she wonders about the lack of difference in blood pressure and lipids in SECURE.

Dr. Gulati said she sees in practice how medication adherence and measurements of blood pressure and lipids typically go hand in hand.

When a patient initially responds to a medication, but then their LDL cholesterol goes up later, “my first question is, ‘Are you still taking your medication or how frequently are you taking it?’” Dr. Gulati said in an interview. “And I get all kinds of answers.”

“If you are more adherent, why wouldn’t your LDL actually be lower, and why wouldn’t your blood pressure be lower?” she asked.
 

Can the results be replicated?

Ethan J. Weiss, MD, a cardiologist and volunteer associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the SECURE results are “spectacular,” but the seeming disconnect with the biomarker measurements “doesn’t make for a clean story.”

“It just seems like if you are making an argument that this is a way to improve compliance ... you would see some evidence of improved compliance objectively” in the biomarker readings, Dr. Weiss said.

Trying to understand how the polypill worked requires more imagination. “Or it makes you just say, ‘Who cares what the mechanism is?’ These people did a lot better, full stop, and that’s all that matters,” he said.

Dr. Weiss said he expects some degree of replication of the results may be needed before practice changes.

To Steven E. Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, the results “don’t make any sense.”

“If they got the same results on the biomarkers that the pill was designed to intervene upon, why are the [primary outcome] results different? It’s completely unexplained,” Dr. Nissen said.

In general, Dr. Nissen has not been an advocate of the polypill approach in higher-income countries.

“Medicine is all about customization of therapy,” he said. “Not everybody needs blood pressure lowering. Not everybody needs the same intensity of LDL reduction. We spend much of our lives seeing patients and treating their blood pressure, and if it doesn’t come down adequately, giving them a higher dose or adding another agent.”

Polypills might be reasonable for primary prevention in countries where people have less access to health care resources, he added. In such settings, a low-cost, simple treatment strategy might have benefit.

But Dr. Nissen still doesn’t see a role for a polypill in secondary prevention.

“I think we have to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look very carefully at the science and try to understand whether this, in fact, is sensible,” he said. “We may need another study to see if this can be replicated.”

For Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, the results of the SECURE trial offer an opportunity to rekindle conversations about the use of polypills for cardiovascular protection. These conversations and studies have been taking place for nearly two decades.

Dr. Kazi, associate director of the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, has used models to study the expected cost-effectiveness of polypills in various countries.

Although polypills can improve patients’ adherence to their prescribed medications, Dr. Kazi and colleagues have found that treatment gaps are “often at the physician level,” with many patients not prescribed all of the medications from which they could benefit.

Availability of polypills could help address those gaps. At the same time, many patients, even those with higher incomes, may have a strong preference for taking a single pill.

Dr. Kazi’s research also shows that a polypill approach may be more economically attractive as countries develop because successful treatment averts cardiovascular events that are costlier to treat.

“In the United States, in order for this to work, we would need a polypill that is both available widely but also affordable,” Dr. Kazi said. “It is going to require a visionary mover” to make that happen.

That could include philanthropic foundations. But it could also be a business opportunity for a company like Barcelona-based Ferrer, which provided the polypills for the SECURE trial.

The clinical and economic evidence in support of polypills has been compelling, Dr. Kazi said: “We have to get on with the business of implementing something that is effective and has the potential to greatly improve population health at scale.” 

The SECURE trial was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program and coordinated by the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC). Ferrer International provided the polypill that was used in the trial. CNIC receives royalties for sales of the polypill from Ferrer. Dr. Weiss is starting a biotech company unrelated to this area of research.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research shows that “polypills” can prevent a combination of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths among patients who have recently experienced a myocardial infarction.

But results from the SECURE trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also raise questions.

How do the polypills reduce cardiovascular problems? And will they ever be available in the United States?

Questions about how they work center on a mystery in the trial data: the polypill – containing aspirin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin – apparently conferred substantial cardiovascular protection while producing average blood pressure and lipid levels that were virtually the same as with usual care.

As to when polypills will be available, the answer may hinge on whether companies, government agencies, or philanthropic foundations come to see making and paying for such treatments – combinations of typically inexpensive generic drugs in a single pill for the sake of convenience and greater adherence – as financially worthwhile.
 

A matter of adherence?

In the SECURE trial, presented late August at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, Barcelona, investigators randomly assigned 2,499 patients with an MI in the previous 6 months to receive usual care or a polypill.

Patients in the usual-care group typically received the same types of treatments included the polypill, only taken separately. Different versions of the polypill were available to allow for titration to tolerated doses of the component medications: aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 mg or 40 mg).

Researchers used the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale to gauge participants’ adherence to their medication regimen and found the polypill group was more adherent. Patients who received the polypill were more likely to have a high level of adherence at 6 months (70.6% vs. 62.7%) and 24 months (74.1% vs. 63.2%), they reported. (The Morisky tool is the subject of some controversy because of aggressive licensing tactics of its creator.)

The primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent revascularization was significantly less likely in the polypill group during a median of 3 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .02).

“A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1,237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1,229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group,” the researchers report.

“Probably, adherence is the most important reason of how this works,” Valentin Fuster, MD, physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who led the study, said at ESC 2022.

Still, some clinicians were left scratching their heads by the lack of difference between treatment groups in average blood pressure and levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

In the group that received the polypill, average systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 24 months were 135.2 mmHg and 74.8 mmHg, respectively. In the group that received usual care, those values were 135.5 mmHg and 74.9 mmHg, respectively.

Likewise, “no substantial differences were found in LDL-cholesterol levels over time between the groups, with a mean value at 24 months of 67.7 mg/dL in the polypill group and 67.2 mg/dL in the usual-care group,” according to the researchers.

One explanation for the findings is that greater adherence led to beneficial effects that were not reflected in lipid and blood pressure measurements, the investigators said. Alternatively, the open-label trial design could have led to different health behaviors between groups, they suggested.

Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she loves the idea of polypills. But she wonders about the lack of difference in blood pressure and lipids in SECURE.

Dr. Gulati said she sees in practice how medication adherence and measurements of blood pressure and lipids typically go hand in hand.

When a patient initially responds to a medication, but then their LDL cholesterol goes up later, “my first question is, ‘Are you still taking your medication or how frequently are you taking it?’” Dr. Gulati said in an interview. “And I get all kinds of answers.”

“If you are more adherent, why wouldn’t your LDL actually be lower, and why wouldn’t your blood pressure be lower?” she asked.
 

Can the results be replicated?

Ethan J. Weiss, MD, a cardiologist and volunteer associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the SECURE results are “spectacular,” but the seeming disconnect with the biomarker measurements “doesn’t make for a clean story.”

“It just seems like if you are making an argument that this is a way to improve compliance ... you would see some evidence of improved compliance objectively” in the biomarker readings, Dr. Weiss said.

Trying to understand how the polypill worked requires more imagination. “Or it makes you just say, ‘Who cares what the mechanism is?’ These people did a lot better, full stop, and that’s all that matters,” he said.

Dr. Weiss said he expects some degree of replication of the results may be needed before practice changes.

To Steven E. Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at Cleveland Clinic, the results “don’t make any sense.”

“If they got the same results on the biomarkers that the pill was designed to intervene upon, why are the [primary outcome] results different? It’s completely unexplained,” Dr. Nissen said.

In general, Dr. Nissen has not been an advocate of the polypill approach in higher-income countries.

“Medicine is all about customization of therapy,” he said. “Not everybody needs blood pressure lowering. Not everybody needs the same intensity of LDL reduction. We spend much of our lives seeing patients and treating their blood pressure, and if it doesn’t come down adequately, giving them a higher dose or adding another agent.”

Polypills might be reasonable for primary prevention in countries where people have less access to health care resources, he added. In such settings, a low-cost, simple treatment strategy might have benefit.

But Dr. Nissen still doesn’t see a role for a polypill in secondary prevention.

“I think we have to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look very carefully at the science and try to understand whether this, in fact, is sensible,” he said. “We may need another study to see if this can be replicated.”

For Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, the results of the SECURE trial offer an opportunity to rekindle conversations about the use of polypills for cardiovascular protection. These conversations and studies have been taking place for nearly two decades.

Dr. Kazi, associate director of the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, has used models to study the expected cost-effectiveness of polypills in various countries.

Although polypills can improve patients’ adherence to their prescribed medications, Dr. Kazi and colleagues have found that treatment gaps are “often at the physician level,” with many patients not prescribed all of the medications from which they could benefit.

Availability of polypills could help address those gaps. At the same time, many patients, even those with higher incomes, may have a strong preference for taking a single pill.

Dr. Kazi’s research also shows that a polypill approach may be more economically attractive as countries develop because successful treatment averts cardiovascular events that are costlier to treat.

“In the United States, in order for this to work, we would need a polypill that is both available widely but also affordable,” Dr. Kazi said. “It is going to require a visionary mover” to make that happen.

That could include philanthropic foundations. But it could also be a business opportunity for a company like Barcelona-based Ferrer, which provided the polypills for the SECURE trial.

The clinical and economic evidence in support of polypills has been compelling, Dr. Kazi said: “We have to get on with the business of implementing something that is effective and has the potential to greatly improve population health at scale.” 

The SECURE trial was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 program and coordinated by the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC). Ferrer International provided the polypill that was used in the trial. CNIC receives royalties for sales of the polypill from Ferrer. Dr. Weiss is starting a biotech company unrelated to this area of research.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Too often, when patients come to see Tejaswini Kulkarni, MD, with shortness of breath and cough and are diagnosed with interstitial lung disease (ILD), they are past the point when treatments would most benefit them.

“There is definitely a delay from the time of symptom onset to the time that they are even evaluated for ILD,” said Dr. Kulkarni of the department of pulmonary, allergy and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Some patients have had a significant loss of lung function by the time they come to see us. By that point we are limited by what treatment options we can offer.”

Interstitial lung disease is an umbrella term for a group of disorders involving progressive scarring of the lungs – typically irreversible – usually caused by long-term exposure to hazardous materials or by autoimmune effects. It includes idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a disease that is fairly rare but which has therapy options that can be effective if caught early enough. The term pulmonary fibrosis refers to lung scarring. Another type of ILD is pulmonary sarcoidosis, in which small clumps of immune cells form in the lungs in an immune response sometimes following an environmental trigger, and can lead to lung scarring if it doesn’t resolve.

Cases of ILD appear to be on the rise, and COVID-19 has made diagnosing it more complicated. One study found the prevalence of ILD and pulmonary sarcoidosis in high-income countries was about 122 of every 100,000 people in 1990 and rose to about 198 of every 100,000 people in 2017. The data were pulled from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. Globally, the researchers found a prevalence of 62 per 100,000 in 1990, compared with 82 per 100,000 in 2017.

If all of a patient’s symptoms have appeared post COVID and a physician is seeing a patient within 4-6 weeks of COVID symptoms, it is likely that the symptoms are COVID related. But a full work-up is recommended if a patient has lung crackles, which are an indicator of lung scarring, she said.

“The patterns that are seen on CT scan for COVID pneumonia are very distinct from what we expect to see with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” Dr. Kulkarni said. “Putting all this information together is what is important to differentiate it from COVID pneumonia, as well as other types of ILD.”

A study published earlier this year found similarities between COVID-19 and IPF in gene expression, their IL-15-heavy cytokine storms, and the type of damage to alveolar cells. Both might be driven by endoplasmic reticulum stress, they found.

“COVID-19 resembles IPF at a fundamental level,” they wrote.

Jeffrey Horowitz, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the Ohio State University, said the need for early diagnosis is in part a function of the therapies available for ILD.

“They don’t make the lung function better,” he said. “So delays in diagnosis mean that there’s the possibility of underlying progression for months, or sometimes years, before the diagnosis is recognized.”

In an area in which diagnosis is delayed and the prognosis is dire – 3-5 years in untreated patients after diagnosis – “there’s a tremendous amount of nihilism out there” among patients, he said.

He said patients with long-term shortness of breath and unexplained cough are often told they have asthma and are prescribed inhalers, but then further assessment isn’t performed when those don’t work.
 

Diagnosing ILD in primary care

Many primary care physicians feel ill-equipped to discuss IPF. More than a dozen physicians contacted for this piece to talk about ILD either did not respond, or said they felt unqualified to respond to questions on the disease.

“Not my area of expertise” and “I don’t think I’m the right person for this discussion” were two of the responses provided to this news organization.

“For some reason, in the world of primary care, it seems like there’s an impediment to getting pulmonary function studies,” Dr. Horowitz said. “Anybody who has a persistent ongoing prolonged unexplained shortness of breath and cough should have pulmonary function studies done.”

Listening to the lungs alone might not be enough, he said. There might be no clear sign in the case of early pulmonary fibrosis, he said.

“There’s the textbook description of these Velcro-sounding crackles, but sometimes it’s very subtle,” he said. “And unless you’re listening very carefully it can easily be missed by somebody who has a busy practice, or it’s loud.”

William E. Golden, MD, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, is the sole primary care physician contacted for this piece who spoke with authority on ILD.

For cases of suspected ILD, internist Dr. Golden, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, suggested ordering a test for diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), which will be low in the case of IPF, along with a fine-cut lung CT scan to assess ongoing fibrotic changes.

It’s “not that difficult, but you need to have an index of suspicion for the diagnosis,” he said.
 

New initiative for helping diagnose ILD

Dr. Kulkarni is a committee member for a new effort under way to try to get patients with ILD diagnosed earlier.

The initiative, called Bridging Specialties: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients, has already produced an introductory podcast and a white paper on the effort, and its rationale is expected to be released soon, according to Dr. Kulkarni and her fellow committee members.

The American College of Chest Physicians and the Three Lakes Foundation – a foundation dedicated to pulmonary fibrosis awareness and research – are working together on this initiative. They plan to put together a suite of resources, to be gradually rolled out on the college’s website, to raise awareness about the importance of early diagnosis of ILD.

The full toolkit, expected to be rolled out over the next 12 months, will include a series of podcasts and resources on how to get patients diagnosed earlier and steps to take in cases of suspected ILD, Dr. Kulkarni said.

“The goal would be to try to increase awareness about the disease so that people start thinking more about it up front – and not after we’ve ruled out everything else,” she said. The main audience will be primary care providers, but patients and community pulmonologists would likely also benefit from the resources, the committee members said.

The urgency of the initiative stems from the way ILD treatments work. They are antifibrotic, meaning they help prevent scar tissue from forming, but they can’t reverse scar tissue that has already formed. If scarring is severe, the only option might be a lung transplant, and, since the average age at ILD diagnosis is in the 60s, many patients have comorbidities that make them ineligible for transplant. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study mentioned earlier, the death rate per 100,000 people with ILD was 1.93 in 2017.

“The longer we take to diagnose it, the more chance that inflammation will become scar tissue,” Dr. Kularni explained.

William Lago, MD, another member of the committee and a family physician, said identifying ILD early is not a straightforward matter .

“When they first present, it’s hard to pick up,” said Dr. Lago, who is also a staff physician at Cleveland Clinic’s Wooster Family Health Center and medical director of the COVID Recover Clinic there. “Many of them, even themselves, will discount the symptoms.”

Dr. Lago said that patients might resist having a work-up even when a primary care physician identifies symptoms as possible ILD. In rural settings, they might have to travel quite a distance for a CT scan or other necessary evaluations, or they might just not think the symptoms are serious enough.

“Most of the time when I’ve picked up some of my pulmonary fibrosis patients, it’s been incidentally while they’re in the office for other things,” he said. He often has to “push the issue” for further work-up, he said.

The overlap of shortness of breath and cough with other, much more common disorders, such as heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), make ILD diagnosis a challenge, he said.

“For most of us, we’ve got sometimes 10 or 15 minutes with a patient who’s presenting with 5-6 different problems. And the shortness of breath or the occasional cough – that they think is nothing – is probably the least of those,” Dr. Lago said.

Dr. Golden said he suspected a tool like the one being developed by CHEST to be useful for some and not useful for others. He added that “no one has the time to spend on that kind of thing.”

Instead, he suggested just reinforcing what the core symptoms are and what the core testing is, “to make people think about it.”

Dr. Horowitiz seemed more optimistic about the likelihood of the CHEST tool being utilized to diagnose ILD.

Whether and how he would use the CHEST resource will depend on the final form it takes, Dr. Horowitz said. It’s encouraging that it’s being put together by a credible source, he added.

Dr. Kulkarni reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Aluda Pharmaceuticals and PureTech Lyt-100 Inc. Dr. Lago, Dr. Horowitz, and Dr. Golden reported no relevant disclosures.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

Too often, when patients come to see Tejaswini Kulkarni, MD, with shortness of breath and cough and are diagnosed with interstitial lung disease (ILD), they are past the point when treatments would most benefit them.

“There is definitely a delay from the time of symptom onset to the time that they are even evaluated for ILD,” said Dr. Kulkarni of the department of pulmonary, allergy and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Some patients have had a significant loss of lung function by the time they come to see us. By that point we are limited by what treatment options we can offer.”

Interstitial lung disease is an umbrella term for a group of disorders involving progressive scarring of the lungs – typically irreversible – usually caused by long-term exposure to hazardous materials or by autoimmune effects. It includes idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a disease that is fairly rare but which has therapy options that can be effective if caught early enough. The term pulmonary fibrosis refers to lung scarring. Another type of ILD is pulmonary sarcoidosis, in which small clumps of immune cells form in the lungs in an immune response sometimes following an environmental trigger, and can lead to lung scarring if it doesn’t resolve.

Cases of ILD appear to be on the rise, and COVID-19 has made diagnosing it more complicated. One study found the prevalence of ILD and pulmonary sarcoidosis in high-income countries was about 122 of every 100,000 people in 1990 and rose to about 198 of every 100,000 people in 2017. The data were pulled from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. Globally, the researchers found a prevalence of 62 per 100,000 in 1990, compared with 82 per 100,000 in 2017.

If all of a patient’s symptoms have appeared post COVID and a physician is seeing a patient within 4-6 weeks of COVID symptoms, it is likely that the symptoms are COVID related. But a full work-up is recommended if a patient has lung crackles, which are an indicator of lung scarring, she said.

“The patterns that are seen on CT scan for COVID pneumonia are very distinct from what we expect to see with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” Dr. Kulkarni said. “Putting all this information together is what is important to differentiate it from COVID pneumonia, as well as other types of ILD.”

A study published earlier this year found similarities between COVID-19 and IPF in gene expression, their IL-15-heavy cytokine storms, and the type of damage to alveolar cells. Both might be driven by endoplasmic reticulum stress, they found.

“COVID-19 resembles IPF at a fundamental level,” they wrote.

Jeffrey Horowitz, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the Ohio State University, said the need for early diagnosis is in part a function of the therapies available for ILD.

“They don’t make the lung function better,” he said. “So delays in diagnosis mean that there’s the possibility of underlying progression for months, or sometimes years, before the diagnosis is recognized.”

In an area in which diagnosis is delayed and the prognosis is dire – 3-5 years in untreated patients after diagnosis – “there’s a tremendous amount of nihilism out there” among patients, he said.

He said patients with long-term shortness of breath and unexplained cough are often told they have asthma and are prescribed inhalers, but then further assessment isn’t performed when those don’t work.
 

Diagnosing ILD in primary care

Many primary care physicians feel ill-equipped to discuss IPF. More than a dozen physicians contacted for this piece to talk about ILD either did not respond, or said they felt unqualified to respond to questions on the disease.

“Not my area of expertise” and “I don’t think I’m the right person for this discussion” were two of the responses provided to this news organization.

“For some reason, in the world of primary care, it seems like there’s an impediment to getting pulmonary function studies,” Dr. Horowitz said. “Anybody who has a persistent ongoing prolonged unexplained shortness of breath and cough should have pulmonary function studies done.”

Listening to the lungs alone might not be enough, he said. There might be no clear sign in the case of early pulmonary fibrosis, he said.

“There’s the textbook description of these Velcro-sounding crackles, but sometimes it’s very subtle,” he said. “And unless you’re listening very carefully it can easily be missed by somebody who has a busy practice, or it’s loud.”

William E. Golden, MD, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, is the sole primary care physician contacted for this piece who spoke with authority on ILD.

For cases of suspected ILD, internist Dr. Golden, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, suggested ordering a test for diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), which will be low in the case of IPF, along with a fine-cut lung CT scan to assess ongoing fibrotic changes.

It’s “not that difficult, but you need to have an index of suspicion for the diagnosis,” he said.
 

New initiative for helping diagnose ILD

Dr. Kulkarni is a committee member for a new effort under way to try to get patients with ILD diagnosed earlier.

The initiative, called Bridging Specialties: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients, has already produced an introductory podcast and a white paper on the effort, and its rationale is expected to be released soon, according to Dr. Kulkarni and her fellow committee members.

The American College of Chest Physicians and the Three Lakes Foundation – a foundation dedicated to pulmonary fibrosis awareness and research – are working together on this initiative. They plan to put together a suite of resources, to be gradually rolled out on the college’s website, to raise awareness about the importance of early diagnosis of ILD.

The full toolkit, expected to be rolled out over the next 12 months, will include a series of podcasts and resources on how to get patients diagnosed earlier and steps to take in cases of suspected ILD, Dr. Kulkarni said.

“The goal would be to try to increase awareness about the disease so that people start thinking more about it up front – and not after we’ve ruled out everything else,” she said. The main audience will be primary care providers, but patients and community pulmonologists would likely also benefit from the resources, the committee members said.

The urgency of the initiative stems from the way ILD treatments work. They are antifibrotic, meaning they help prevent scar tissue from forming, but they can’t reverse scar tissue that has already formed. If scarring is severe, the only option might be a lung transplant, and, since the average age at ILD diagnosis is in the 60s, many patients have comorbidities that make them ineligible for transplant. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study mentioned earlier, the death rate per 100,000 people with ILD was 1.93 in 2017.

“The longer we take to diagnose it, the more chance that inflammation will become scar tissue,” Dr. Kularni explained.

William Lago, MD, another member of the committee and a family physician, said identifying ILD early is not a straightforward matter .

“When they first present, it’s hard to pick up,” said Dr. Lago, who is also a staff physician at Cleveland Clinic’s Wooster Family Health Center and medical director of the COVID Recover Clinic there. “Many of them, even themselves, will discount the symptoms.”

Dr. Lago said that patients might resist having a work-up even when a primary care physician identifies symptoms as possible ILD. In rural settings, they might have to travel quite a distance for a CT scan or other necessary evaluations, or they might just not think the symptoms are serious enough.

“Most of the time when I’ve picked up some of my pulmonary fibrosis patients, it’s been incidentally while they’re in the office for other things,” he said. He often has to “push the issue” for further work-up, he said.

The overlap of shortness of breath and cough with other, much more common disorders, such as heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), make ILD diagnosis a challenge, he said.

“For most of us, we’ve got sometimes 10 or 15 minutes with a patient who’s presenting with 5-6 different problems. And the shortness of breath or the occasional cough – that they think is nothing – is probably the least of those,” Dr. Lago said.

Dr. Golden said he suspected a tool like the one being developed by CHEST to be useful for some and not useful for others. He added that “no one has the time to spend on that kind of thing.”

Instead, he suggested just reinforcing what the core symptoms are and what the core testing is, “to make people think about it.”

Dr. Horowitiz seemed more optimistic about the likelihood of the CHEST tool being utilized to diagnose ILD.

Whether and how he would use the CHEST resource will depend on the final form it takes, Dr. Horowitz said. It’s encouraging that it’s being put together by a credible source, he added.

Dr. Kulkarni reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Aluda Pharmaceuticals and PureTech Lyt-100 Inc. Dr. Lago, Dr. Horowitz, and Dr. Golden reported no relevant disclosures.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

Too often, when patients come to see Tejaswini Kulkarni, MD, with shortness of breath and cough and are diagnosed with interstitial lung disease (ILD), they are past the point when treatments would most benefit them.

“There is definitely a delay from the time of symptom onset to the time that they are even evaluated for ILD,” said Dr. Kulkarni of the department of pulmonary, allergy and critical care medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Some patients have had a significant loss of lung function by the time they come to see us. By that point we are limited by what treatment options we can offer.”

Interstitial lung disease is an umbrella term for a group of disorders involving progressive scarring of the lungs – typically irreversible – usually caused by long-term exposure to hazardous materials or by autoimmune effects. It includes idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a disease that is fairly rare but which has therapy options that can be effective if caught early enough. The term pulmonary fibrosis refers to lung scarring. Another type of ILD is pulmonary sarcoidosis, in which small clumps of immune cells form in the lungs in an immune response sometimes following an environmental trigger, and can lead to lung scarring if it doesn’t resolve.

Cases of ILD appear to be on the rise, and COVID-19 has made diagnosing it more complicated. One study found the prevalence of ILD and pulmonary sarcoidosis in high-income countries was about 122 of every 100,000 people in 1990 and rose to about 198 of every 100,000 people in 2017. The data were pulled from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017. Globally, the researchers found a prevalence of 62 per 100,000 in 1990, compared with 82 per 100,000 in 2017.

If all of a patient’s symptoms have appeared post COVID and a physician is seeing a patient within 4-6 weeks of COVID symptoms, it is likely that the symptoms are COVID related. But a full work-up is recommended if a patient has lung crackles, which are an indicator of lung scarring, she said.

“The patterns that are seen on CT scan for COVID pneumonia are very distinct from what we expect to see with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” Dr. Kulkarni said. “Putting all this information together is what is important to differentiate it from COVID pneumonia, as well as other types of ILD.”

A study published earlier this year found similarities between COVID-19 and IPF in gene expression, their IL-15-heavy cytokine storms, and the type of damage to alveolar cells. Both might be driven by endoplasmic reticulum stress, they found.

“COVID-19 resembles IPF at a fundamental level,” they wrote.

Jeffrey Horowitz, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the Ohio State University, said the need for early diagnosis is in part a function of the therapies available for ILD.

“They don’t make the lung function better,” he said. “So delays in diagnosis mean that there’s the possibility of underlying progression for months, or sometimes years, before the diagnosis is recognized.”

In an area in which diagnosis is delayed and the prognosis is dire – 3-5 years in untreated patients after diagnosis – “there’s a tremendous amount of nihilism out there” among patients, he said.

He said patients with long-term shortness of breath and unexplained cough are often told they have asthma and are prescribed inhalers, but then further assessment isn’t performed when those don’t work.
 

Diagnosing ILD in primary care

Many primary care physicians feel ill-equipped to discuss IPF. More than a dozen physicians contacted for this piece to talk about ILD either did not respond, or said they felt unqualified to respond to questions on the disease.

“Not my area of expertise” and “I don’t think I’m the right person for this discussion” were two of the responses provided to this news organization.

“For some reason, in the world of primary care, it seems like there’s an impediment to getting pulmonary function studies,” Dr. Horowitz said. “Anybody who has a persistent ongoing prolonged unexplained shortness of breath and cough should have pulmonary function studies done.”

Listening to the lungs alone might not be enough, he said. There might be no clear sign in the case of early pulmonary fibrosis, he said.

“There’s the textbook description of these Velcro-sounding crackles, but sometimes it’s very subtle,” he said. “And unless you’re listening very carefully it can easily be missed by somebody who has a busy practice, or it’s loud.”

William E. Golden, MD, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, is the sole primary care physician contacted for this piece who spoke with authority on ILD.

For cases of suspected ILD, internist Dr. Golden, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, suggested ordering a test for diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), which will be low in the case of IPF, along with a fine-cut lung CT scan to assess ongoing fibrotic changes.

It’s “not that difficult, but you need to have an index of suspicion for the diagnosis,” he said.
 

New initiative for helping diagnose ILD

Dr. Kulkarni is a committee member for a new effort under way to try to get patients with ILD diagnosed earlier.

The initiative, called Bridging Specialties: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients, has already produced an introductory podcast and a white paper on the effort, and its rationale is expected to be released soon, according to Dr. Kulkarni and her fellow committee members.

The American College of Chest Physicians and the Three Lakes Foundation – a foundation dedicated to pulmonary fibrosis awareness and research – are working together on this initiative. They plan to put together a suite of resources, to be gradually rolled out on the college’s website, to raise awareness about the importance of early diagnosis of ILD.

The full toolkit, expected to be rolled out over the next 12 months, will include a series of podcasts and resources on how to get patients diagnosed earlier and steps to take in cases of suspected ILD, Dr. Kulkarni said.

“The goal would be to try to increase awareness about the disease so that people start thinking more about it up front – and not after we’ve ruled out everything else,” she said. The main audience will be primary care providers, but patients and community pulmonologists would likely also benefit from the resources, the committee members said.

The urgency of the initiative stems from the way ILD treatments work. They are antifibrotic, meaning they help prevent scar tissue from forming, but they can’t reverse scar tissue that has already formed. If scarring is severe, the only option might be a lung transplant, and, since the average age at ILD diagnosis is in the 60s, many patients have comorbidities that make them ineligible for transplant. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study mentioned earlier, the death rate per 100,000 people with ILD was 1.93 in 2017.

“The longer we take to diagnose it, the more chance that inflammation will become scar tissue,” Dr. Kularni explained.

William Lago, MD, another member of the committee and a family physician, said identifying ILD early is not a straightforward matter .

“When they first present, it’s hard to pick up,” said Dr. Lago, who is also a staff physician at Cleveland Clinic’s Wooster Family Health Center and medical director of the COVID Recover Clinic there. “Many of them, even themselves, will discount the symptoms.”

Dr. Lago said that patients might resist having a work-up even when a primary care physician identifies symptoms as possible ILD. In rural settings, they might have to travel quite a distance for a CT scan or other necessary evaluations, or they might just not think the symptoms are serious enough.

“Most of the time when I’ve picked up some of my pulmonary fibrosis patients, it’s been incidentally while they’re in the office for other things,” he said. He often has to “push the issue” for further work-up, he said.

The overlap of shortness of breath and cough with other, much more common disorders, such as heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), make ILD diagnosis a challenge, he said.

“For most of us, we’ve got sometimes 10 or 15 minutes with a patient who’s presenting with 5-6 different problems. And the shortness of breath or the occasional cough – that they think is nothing – is probably the least of those,” Dr. Lago said.

Dr. Golden said he suspected a tool like the one being developed by CHEST to be useful for some and not useful for others. He added that “no one has the time to spend on that kind of thing.”

Instead, he suggested just reinforcing what the core symptoms are and what the core testing is, “to make people think about it.”

Dr. Horowitiz seemed more optimistic about the likelihood of the CHEST tool being utilized to diagnose ILD.

Whether and how he would use the CHEST resource will depend on the final form it takes, Dr. Horowitz said. It’s encouraging that it’s being put together by a credible source, he added.

Dr. Kulkarni reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Aluda Pharmaceuticals and PureTech Lyt-100 Inc. Dr. Lago, Dr. Horowitz, and Dr. Golden reported no relevant disclosures.

Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.