CHEST Physician

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

Oral fluoroquinolone therapy to treat a respiratory infection is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients on hemodialysis, particularly those taking other QT-prolonging medications, a large observational study suggests.

However, in many cases, the absolute risk is relatively small, and the antimicrobial benefits of a fluoroquinolone may outweigh the potential cardiac risks, the researchers say.

“Pathogen-directed treatment of respiratory infections is of the utmost importance. Respiratory fluoroquinolones should be prescribed whenever an amoxicillin-based antibiotic offers suboptimal antimicrobial coverage and clinicians should consider electrocardiographic monitoring,” first author Magdalene M. Assimon, PharmD, PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in JAMA Cardiology (doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4234).
 

Nearly twofold increased risk 

The QT interval-prolonging potential of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are well known. However, evidence linking respiratory fluoroquinolones to adverse cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population is limited.

These new observational findings are based on a total of 626,322 antibiotic treatment episodes among 264,968 adults (mean age, 61 years; 51% men) receiving in-center hemodialysis – with respiratory fluoroquinolone making up 40.2% of treatment episodes and amoxicillin-based antibiotic treatment episodes making up 59.8%.

The rate of SCD within 5 days of outpatient initiation of a study antibiotic was 105.7 per 100,000 people prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) versus with 40.0 per 100,000 prescribed amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (weighted hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.41).

The authors estimate that one additional SCD would occur during a 5-day follow-up period for every 2,273 respiratory fluoroquinolone treatment episodes. Consistent associations were seen when follow-up was extended to 7, 10, and 14 days.

“Our data suggest that curtailing respiratory fluoroquinolone prescribing may be one actionable strategy to mitigate SCD risk in the hemodialysis population. However, the associated absolute risk reduction would be relatively small,” wrote the authors.

They noted that the rate of SCD in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by more than 20-fold. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have a least one risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation.

In the current study, nearly 20% of hemodialysis patients prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone were taking other medications with known risk for torsades de pointes.

“Our results emphasize the importance of performing a thorough medication review and considering pharmacodynamic drug interactions before prescribing new drug therapies for any condition,” Dr. Assimon and colleagues advised.

They suggest that clinicians consider electrocardiographic monitoring before and during fluoroquinolone therapy in hemodialysis patients, especially in high-risk individuals.
 

Valuable study

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, of the division of kidney diseases and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., called the analysis “valuable” and said the results are “consistent with the known association of cardiac arrhythmias with respiratory fluoroquinolone use in the general population, postulated to be due to increased risk of torsades de pointes from QTc prolongation. This abnormal heart rhythm can lead to sudden cardiac death.

“Notably, the population receiving respiratory fluoroquinolones had a higher incidence of cardiac disease at baseline, but the risk persisted after adjustment for this increased burden of comorbidity,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. He was not involved in the current research.

Dr. Shah cautioned that observational data such as these should be considered more “hypothesis-generating than practice-changing, as there may be unrecognized confounders or differences in the population that received the respiratory fluoroquinolones.

“A prospective randomized trial would provide a definitive answer, but in the interim, caution should be taken in using respiratory fluoroquinolones when local bacterial resistance patterns or patient-specific data offer another option,” Dr. Shah concluded.  

Dr. Assimon reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute (a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care), honoraria from the International Society of Nephrology for serving as a statistical reviewer for Kidney International Reports, and honoraria from the American Society of Nephrology for serving as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral fluoroquinolone therapy to treat a respiratory infection is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients on hemodialysis, particularly those taking other QT-prolonging medications, a large observational study suggests.

However, in many cases, the absolute risk is relatively small, and the antimicrobial benefits of a fluoroquinolone may outweigh the potential cardiac risks, the researchers say.

“Pathogen-directed treatment of respiratory infections is of the utmost importance. Respiratory fluoroquinolones should be prescribed whenever an amoxicillin-based antibiotic offers suboptimal antimicrobial coverage and clinicians should consider electrocardiographic monitoring,” first author Magdalene M. Assimon, PharmD, PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in JAMA Cardiology (doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4234).
 

Nearly twofold increased risk 

The QT interval-prolonging potential of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are well known. However, evidence linking respiratory fluoroquinolones to adverse cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population is limited.

These new observational findings are based on a total of 626,322 antibiotic treatment episodes among 264,968 adults (mean age, 61 years; 51% men) receiving in-center hemodialysis – with respiratory fluoroquinolone making up 40.2% of treatment episodes and amoxicillin-based antibiotic treatment episodes making up 59.8%.

The rate of SCD within 5 days of outpatient initiation of a study antibiotic was 105.7 per 100,000 people prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) versus with 40.0 per 100,000 prescribed amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (weighted hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.41).

The authors estimate that one additional SCD would occur during a 5-day follow-up period for every 2,273 respiratory fluoroquinolone treatment episodes. Consistent associations were seen when follow-up was extended to 7, 10, and 14 days.

“Our data suggest that curtailing respiratory fluoroquinolone prescribing may be one actionable strategy to mitigate SCD risk in the hemodialysis population. However, the associated absolute risk reduction would be relatively small,” wrote the authors.

They noted that the rate of SCD in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by more than 20-fold. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have a least one risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation.

In the current study, nearly 20% of hemodialysis patients prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone were taking other medications with known risk for torsades de pointes.

“Our results emphasize the importance of performing a thorough medication review and considering pharmacodynamic drug interactions before prescribing new drug therapies for any condition,” Dr. Assimon and colleagues advised.

They suggest that clinicians consider electrocardiographic monitoring before and during fluoroquinolone therapy in hemodialysis patients, especially in high-risk individuals.
 

Valuable study

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, of the division of kidney diseases and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., called the analysis “valuable” and said the results are “consistent with the known association of cardiac arrhythmias with respiratory fluoroquinolone use in the general population, postulated to be due to increased risk of torsades de pointes from QTc prolongation. This abnormal heart rhythm can lead to sudden cardiac death.

“Notably, the population receiving respiratory fluoroquinolones had a higher incidence of cardiac disease at baseline, but the risk persisted after adjustment for this increased burden of comorbidity,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. He was not involved in the current research.

Dr. Shah cautioned that observational data such as these should be considered more “hypothesis-generating than practice-changing, as there may be unrecognized confounders or differences in the population that received the respiratory fluoroquinolones.

“A prospective randomized trial would provide a definitive answer, but in the interim, caution should be taken in using respiratory fluoroquinolones when local bacterial resistance patterns or patient-specific data offer another option,” Dr. Shah concluded.  

Dr. Assimon reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute (a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care), honoraria from the International Society of Nephrology for serving as a statistical reviewer for Kidney International Reports, and honoraria from the American Society of Nephrology for serving as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral fluoroquinolone therapy to treat a respiratory infection is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients on hemodialysis, particularly those taking other QT-prolonging medications, a large observational study suggests.

However, in many cases, the absolute risk is relatively small, and the antimicrobial benefits of a fluoroquinolone may outweigh the potential cardiac risks, the researchers say.

“Pathogen-directed treatment of respiratory infections is of the utmost importance. Respiratory fluoroquinolones should be prescribed whenever an amoxicillin-based antibiotic offers suboptimal antimicrobial coverage and clinicians should consider electrocardiographic monitoring,” first author Magdalene M. Assimon, PharmD, PhD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in JAMA Cardiology (doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4234).
 

Nearly twofold increased risk 

The QT interval-prolonging potential of fluoroquinolone antibiotics are well known. However, evidence linking respiratory fluoroquinolones to adverse cardiac outcomes in the hemodialysis population is limited.

These new observational findings are based on a total of 626,322 antibiotic treatment episodes among 264,968 adults (mean age, 61 years; 51% men) receiving in-center hemodialysis – with respiratory fluoroquinolone making up 40.2% of treatment episodes and amoxicillin-based antibiotic treatment episodes making up 59.8%.

The rate of SCD within 5 days of outpatient initiation of a study antibiotic was 105.7 per 100,000 people prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin) versus with 40.0 per 100,000 prescribed amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (weighted hazard ratio: 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.41).

The authors estimate that one additional SCD would occur during a 5-day follow-up period for every 2,273 respiratory fluoroquinolone treatment episodes. Consistent associations were seen when follow-up was extended to 7, 10, and 14 days.

“Our data suggest that curtailing respiratory fluoroquinolone prescribing may be one actionable strategy to mitigate SCD risk in the hemodialysis population. However, the associated absolute risk reduction would be relatively small,” wrote the authors.

They noted that the rate of SCD in the hemodialysis population exceeds that of the general population by more than 20-fold. Most patients undergoing hemodialysis have a least one risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation.

In the current study, nearly 20% of hemodialysis patients prescribed a respiratory fluoroquinolone were taking other medications with known risk for torsades de pointes.

“Our results emphasize the importance of performing a thorough medication review and considering pharmacodynamic drug interactions before prescribing new drug therapies for any condition,” Dr. Assimon and colleagues advised.

They suggest that clinicians consider electrocardiographic monitoring before and during fluoroquinolone therapy in hemodialysis patients, especially in high-risk individuals.
 

Valuable study

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, of the division of kidney diseases and hypertension, Brown University, Providence, R.I., called the analysis “valuable” and said the results are “consistent with the known association of cardiac arrhythmias with respiratory fluoroquinolone use in the general population, postulated to be due to increased risk of torsades de pointes from QTc prolongation. This abnormal heart rhythm can lead to sudden cardiac death.

“Notably, the population receiving respiratory fluoroquinolones had a higher incidence of cardiac disease at baseline, but the risk persisted after adjustment for this increased burden of comorbidity,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. He was not involved in the current research.

Dr. Shah cautioned that observational data such as these should be considered more “hypothesis-generating than practice-changing, as there may be unrecognized confounders or differences in the population that received the respiratory fluoroquinolones.

“A prospective randomized trial would provide a definitive answer, but in the interim, caution should be taken in using respiratory fluoroquinolones when local bacterial resistance patterns or patient-specific data offer another option,” Dr. Shah concluded.  

Dr. Assimon reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute (a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care), honoraria from the International Society of Nephrology for serving as a statistical reviewer for Kidney International Reports, and honoraria from the American Society of Nephrology for serving as an editorial fellow for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.

Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.

“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Valid concerns, negative effects

“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.

“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.

With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.

At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
 

Study details

ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.

A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.

A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.

In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.

Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.

“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”

She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.

“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.

Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.

“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Valid concerns, negative effects

“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.

“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.

With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.

At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
 

Study details

ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.

A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.

A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.

In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.

Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.

“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”

She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.

“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.

Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.

“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Valid concerns, negative effects

“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.

“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.

With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.

At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
 

Study details

ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.

A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.

A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.

In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.

Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.

“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”

She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.

“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.

Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
 

Higher death rates for Black patients

At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.

To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.

All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.

In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.

The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.

The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.

Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.

Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
 

Missing data

Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.

“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.

“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.

“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.

Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
 

Higher death rates for Black patients

At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.

To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.

All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.

In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.

The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.

The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.

Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.

Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
 

Missing data

Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.

“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.

“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.

“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.

Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
 

Higher death rates for Black patients

At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.

To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.

All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.

In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.

The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.

The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.

Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.

Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
 

Missing data

Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.

“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.

“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.

“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The new breakfast of champions

We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.

PxHere

Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.

The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.

There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.

Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
 

COVID-19 resisters, please step forward

Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.

ktsimage/Thinkstock

Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.

The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.

The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.

Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
 

Better living through parasitization

How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?

pxfuel

Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.

If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.

In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.

They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.

Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
 

Laughing the pandemic stress away

Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.

The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.

The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.

“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”

So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
 

Giving the gift of stress reduction

It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.

Sadanduseless.com

We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!

The new breakfast of champions

We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.

PxHere

Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.

The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.

There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.

Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
 

COVID-19 resisters, please step forward

Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.

ktsimage/Thinkstock

Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.

The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.

The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.

Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
 

Better living through parasitization

How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?

pxfuel

Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.

If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.

In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.

They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.

Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
 

Laughing the pandemic stress away

Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.

The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.

The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.

“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”

So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
 

Giving the gift of stress reduction

It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.

Sadanduseless.com

We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!

The new breakfast of champions

We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.

PxHere

Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.

The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.

There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.

Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
 

COVID-19 resisters, please step forward

Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.

ktsimage/Thinkstock

Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.

The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.

The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.

Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
 

Better living through parasitization

How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?

pxfuel

Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.

If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.

In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.

They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.

Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
 

Laughing the pandemic stress away

Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.

The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.

The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.

“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”

So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
 

Giving the gift of stress reduction

It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.

Sadanduseless.com

We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized booster doses for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, while also allowing boosters to be given interchangeably with any of the other vaccines, in people who are eligible to get them.

The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.

The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.

People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:

• 65 years of age or older
• 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
• 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare

People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.

“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.

“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized booster doses for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, while also allowing boosters to be given interchangeably with any of the other vaccines, in people who are eligible to get them.

The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.

The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.

People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:

• 65 years of age or older
• 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
• 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare

People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.

“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.

“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized booster doses for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, while also allowing boosters to be given interchangeably with any of the other vaccines, in people who are eligible to get them.

The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.

The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.

People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:

• 65 years of age or older
• 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
• 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare

People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.

“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.

“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.