CHEST Physician

All-cause mortality in patients with COPD over 10 years of follow-up was accurately predicted by a newly developed model based on a point system incorporating imaging-derived variables.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Identifying risk factors is important to develop treatments and preventive strategies, but the role of imaging variables in COPD mortality among smokers has not been well studied, wrote investigator Matthew Strand, PhD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues.

An established risk model is the body mass index–airflow Obstruction-Dyspnea-Exercise capacity (BODE) index, developed to predict mortality in COPD patients over a 4-year period. The investigators noted that while models such as BODE provide useful information about predictors of mortality in COPD, they were developed using participants in the Global initiative for obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) spirometry grades 1-4, and have been largely constructed without quantitative computed tomography (CT) imaging variables until recently.

“The BODE index was created as a simple point scoring system to predict risk of all-cause mortality within 4 years, and is based on FEV_{1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second]}, [6-minute walk test], dyspnea and BMI, a subset of predictors we considered in our model,” the investigators noted. The new model includes data from pulmonary function tests and volumetric CT scans.

In a study published in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, the researchers identified 9,074 current and past smokers in the COPD Genetic Epidemiology study (COPDGene) for whom complete data were available. They developed a point system to determine mortality risk in current and former smokers after controlling for multiple risk factors. The average age of the study population was 60 years. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

Assessments of the study participants included a medical history, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, a 6-minute walk distance test, and inspiratory and expiratory CT scans. The researchers analyzed mortality risk in the context of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classifications of patients in the sample.

Overall, the average 10-year mortality risk was 18% for women and 25% for men. Performance on the 6-minute walk test (distances less than 500 feet), FEV₁ (less than 20), and older age (80 years and older) were the strongest predictors of mortality.

The model showed strong predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve averaging 0.797 that was validated in an external cohort, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the observational design that does not allow for estimating the causal effects of such modifiable factors as smoking cessation, that might impact the walking test and FEV₁ values, the researchers noted. In addition, the model did not allow for testing the effects of smoking vs. not smoking.

However, the model developed in the study “will allow physicians and patients to better understand factors affecting risk of an adverse event, some of which may be modifiable,” the researchers said. “The risk estimates can be used to target groups of individuals for future clinical trials, including those not currently classified as having COPD based on GOLD criteria,” they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the COPD Foundation through contributions to an industry advisory committee including AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, and Sunovion.

All-cause mortality in patients with COPD over 10 years of follow-up was accurately predicted by a newly developed model based on a point system incorporating imaging-derived variables.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Identifying risk factors is important to develop treatments and preventive strategies, but the role of imaging variables in COPD mortality among smokers has not been well studied, wrote investigator Matthew Strand, PhD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues.

An established risk model is the body mass index–airflow Obstruction-Dyspnea-Exercise capacity (BODE) index, developed to predict mortality in COPD patients over a 4-year period. The investigators noted that while models such as BODE provide useful information about predictors of mortality in COPD, they were developed using participants in the Global initiative for obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) spirometry grades 1-4, and have been largely constructed without quantitative computed tomography (CT) imaging variables until recently.

“The BODE index was created as a simple point scoring system to predict risk of all-cause mortality within 4 years, and is based on FEV_{1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second]}, [6-minute walk test], dyspnea and BMI, a subset of predictors we considered in our model,” the investigators noted. The new model includes data from pulmonary function tests and volumetric CT scans.

In a study published in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, the researchers identified 9,074 current and past smokers in the COPD Genetic Epidemiology study (COPDGene) for whom complete data were available. They developed a point system to determine mortality risk in current and former smokers after controlling for multiple risk factors. The average age of the study population was 60 years. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

Assessments of the study participants included a medical history, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, a 6-minute walk distance test, and inspiratory and expiratory CT scans. The researchers analyzed mortality risk in the context of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classifications of patients in the sample.

Overall, the average 10-year mortality risk was 18% for women and 25% for men. Performance on the 6-minute walk test (distances less than 500 feet), FEV₁ (less than 20), and older age (80 years and older) were the strongest predictors of mortality.

The model showed strong predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve averaging 0.797 that was validated in an external cohort, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the observational design that does not allow for estimating the causal effects of such modifiable factors as smoking cessation, that might impact the walking test and FEV₁ values, the researchers noted. In addition, the model did not allow for testing the effects of smoking vs. not smoking.

However, the model developed in the study “will allow physicians and patients to better understand factors affecting risk of an adverse event, some of which may be modifiable,” the researchers said. “The risk estimates can be used to target groups of individuals for future clinical trials, including those not currently classified as having COPD based on GOLD criteria,” they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the COPD Foundation through contributions to an industry advisory committee including AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, and Sunovion.

All-cause mortality in patients with COPD over 10 years of follow-up was accurately predicted by a newly developed model based on a point system incorporating imaging-derived variables.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Identifying risk factors is important to develop treatments and preventive strategies, but the role of imaging variables in COPD mortality among smokers has not been well studied, wrote investigator Matthew Strand, PhD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues.

An established risk model is the body mass index–airflow Obstruction-Dyspnea-Exercise capacity (BODE) index, developed to predict mortality in COPD patients over a 4-year period. The investigators noted that while models such as BODE provide useful information about predictors of mortality in COPD, they were developed using participants in the Global initiative for obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) spirometry grades 1-4, and have been largely constructed without quantitative computed tomography (CT) imaging variables until recently.

“The BODE index was created as a simple point scoring system to predict risk of all-cause mortality within 4 years, and is based on FEV_{1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second]}, [6-minute walk test], dyspnea and BMI, a subset of predictors we considered in our model,” the investigators noted. The new model includes data from pulmonary function tests and volumetric CT scans.

In a study published in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, the researchers identified 9,074 current and past smokers in the COPD Genetic Epidemiology study (COPDGene) for whom complete data were available. They developed a point system to determine mortality risk in current and former smokers after controlling for multiple risk factors. The average age of the study population was 60 years. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

Assessments of the study participants included a medical history, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, a 6-minute walk distance test, and inspiratory and expiratory CT scans. The researchers analyzed mortality risk in the context of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classifications of patients in the sample.

Overall, the average 10-year mortality risk was 18% for women and 25% for men. Performance on the 6-minute walk test (distances less than 500 feet), FEV₁ (less than 20), and older age (80 years and older) were the strongest predictors of mortality.

The model showed strong predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve averaging 0.797 that was validated in an external cohort, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the observational design that does not allow for estimating the causal effects of such modifiable factors as smoking cessation, that might impact the walking test and FEV₁ values, the researchers noted. In addition, the model did not allow for testing the effects of smoking vs. not smoking.

However, the model developed in the study “will allow physicians and patients to better understand factors affecting risk of an adverse event, some of which may be modifiable,” the researchers said. “The risk estimates can be used to target groups of individuals for future clinical trials, including those not currently classified as having COPD based on GOLD criteria,” they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the COPD Foundation through contributions to an industry advisory committee including AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, and Sunovion.

The molecular biomarkers of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) – and hence the best treatment option – may soon be identified in real time from scans, thanks to a new decision support tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI).

Researchers developed deep learning models that could accurately predict a patient’s PD-L1 and EGFR mutation status without the need for a biopsy. If these models are validated in prospective trials, they could guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC, according to the researchers.

Wei Mu, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., described this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-03).
 

Rationale

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse tailored treatment for patients with NSCLC; namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors for those with PD-L1-positive tumors and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with tumors harboring a mutation in EGFR.

However, the conventional approach to ascertaining tumor status for these biomarkers has disadvantages, Dr. Mu noted.

“Both require biopsy, which may fail due to insufficient quality of the tissue and, particularly for NSCLC, may increase the chance of morbidity,” Dr. Mu said.

In addition, there is room for improvement in the rigor of the biomarker assays, and there can be substantial wait times for results.

To address these issues, Dr. Mu and colleagues explored an AI radiomics approach using PET/CT scans.

“We know that EGFR mutation and positive PD-L1 expression may change the metabolism of the peritumor and intratumor microenvironment,” Dr. Mu explained. “Therefore, we had the hypothesis that they can be captured by the FDG-PET/CT images.”
 

Results

The investigators used FDG-PET/CT images from 837 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at four institutions. The team developed AI deep learning models that generated one score for PD-L1 positivity and another score for presence of an EGFR mutation, as well as an associated algorithm that would direct patients to the appropriate treatments depending on the scores.

Results for the PD-L1 deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting positivity for this ligand, with an area under the curve of 0.89 in the training cohort, 0.84 in the validation cohort, and 0.82 in an external test cohort, Dr. Mu reported. All exceeded the corresponding areas under the curve for maximal standardized uptake values.

Moreover, the score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from PD-L1 status determined by immunohistochemistry in predicting progression-free survival.

Similarly, the EGFR deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting mutational status, with an area under the curve of 0.86 in the training cohort, 0.83 in the validation cohort, and 0.81 in an external test cohort. It outperformed a clinical score based on sex, smoking status, tumor histology, and maximal standardized uptake value in each cohort.

The EGFR deep learning score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from EGFR mutational status determined by polymerase chain reaction in predicting progression-free survival.

The models showed good stability when size of the input region of interest was varied, and when different radiologists delineated the region of interest, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91.

“We developed deep learning models to predict PD-L1 status and EGFR mutation with high accuracy. Using the generated deep learning scores, we obtained a noninvasive treatment decision support tool, which may be useful as a clinical decision support tool pending validation of its clinical utility in a large prospective trial,” Dr. Mu summarized. “Using our tool, NSCLC patients could be directly offered a treatment decision without the need of biopsy.”

“In the future, we will perform a prospective observational trial to compare the results of our noninvasive treatment decision tool with molecular biomarker–based NCCN guidelines,” she said.

The investigators plan to add ALK rearrangement status and prediction of serious adverse events and cachexia to the decision support tool.

Dr. Mu disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not have specific funding.

The molecular biomarkers of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) – and hence the best treatment option – may soon be identified in real time from scans, thanks to a new decision support tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI).

Researchers developed deep learning models that could accurately predict a patient’s PD-L1 and EGFR mutation status without the need for a biopsy. If these models are validated in prospective trials, they could guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC, according to the researchers.

Wei Mu, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., described this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-03).
 

Rationale

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse tailored treatment for patients with NSCLC; namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors for those with PD-L1-positive tumors and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with tumors harboring a mutation in EGFR.

However, the conventional approach to ascertaining tumor status for these biomarkers has disadvantages, Dr. Mu noted.

“Both require biopsy, which may fail due to insufficient quality of the tissue and, particularly for NSCLC, may increase the chance of morbidity,” Dr. Mu said.

In addition, there is room for improvement in the rigor of the biomarker assays, and there can be substantial wait times for results.

To address these issues, Dr. Mu and colleagues explored an AI radiomics approach using PET/CT scans.

“We know that EGFR mutation and positive PD-L1 expression may change the metabolism of the peritumor and intratumor microenvironment,” Dr. Mu explained. “Therefore, we had the hypothesis that they can be captured by the FDG-PET/CT images.”
 

Results

The investigators used FDG-PET/CT images from 837 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at four institutions. The team developed AI deep learning models that generated one score for PD-L1 positivity and another score for presence of an EGFR mutation, as well as an associated algorithm that would direct patients to the appropriate treatments depending on the scores.

Results for the PD-L1 deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting positivity for this ligand, with an area under the curve of 0.89 in the training cohort, 0.84 in the validation cohort, and 0.82 in an external test cohort, Dr. Mu reported. All exceeded the corresponding areas under the curve for maximal standardized uptake values.

Moreover, the score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from PD-L1 status determined by immunohistochemistry in predicting progression-free survival.

Similarly, the EGFR deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting mutational status, with an area under the curve of 0.86 in the training cohort, 0.83 in the validation cohort, and 0.81 in an external test cohort. It outperformed a clinical score based on sex, smoking status, tumor histology, and maximal standardized uptake value in each cohort.

The EGFR deep learning score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from EGFR mutational status determined by polymerase chain reaction in predicting progression-free survival.

The models showed good stability when size of the input region of interest was varied, and when different radiologists delineated the region of interest, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91.

“We developed deep learning models to predict PD-L1 status and EGFR mutation with high accuracy. Using the generated deep learning scores, we obtained a noninvasive treatment decision support tool, which may be useful as a clinical decision support tool pending validation of its clinical utility in a large prospective trial,” Dr. Mu summarized. “Using our tool, NSCLC patients could be directly offered a treatment decision without the need of biopsy.”

“In the future, we will perform a prospective observational trial to compare the results of our noninvasive treatment decision tool with molecular biomarker–based NCCN guidelines,” she said.

The investigators plan to add ALK rearrangement status and prediction of serious adverse events and cachexia to the decision support tool.

Dr. Mu disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not have specific funding.

The molecular biomarkers of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) – and hence the best treatment option – may soon be identified in real time from scans, thanks to a new decision support tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI).

Researchers developed deep learning models that could accurately predict a patient’s PD-L1 and EGFR mutation status without the need for a biopsy. If these models are validated in prospective trials, they could guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC, according to the researchers.

Wei Mu, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., described this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-03).
 

Rationale

Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse tailored treatment for patients with NSCLC; namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors for those with PD-L1-positive tumors and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with tumors harboring a mutation in EGFR.

However, the conventional approach to ascertaining tumor status for these biomarkers has disadvantages, Dr. Mu noted.

“Both require biopsy, which may fail due to insufficient quality of the tissue and, particularly for NSCLC, may increase the chance of morbidity,” Dr. Mu said.

In addition, there is room for improvement in the rigor of the biomarker assays, and there can be substantial wait times for results.

To address these issues, Dr. Mu and colleagues explored an AI radiomics approach using PET/CT scans.

“We know that EGFR mutation and positive PD-L1 expression may change the metabolism of the peritumor and intratumor microenvironment,” Dr. Mu explained. “Therefore, we had the hypothesis that they can be captured by the FDG-PET/CT images.”
 

Results

The investigators used FDG-PET/CT images from 837 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at four institutions. The team developed AI deep learning models that generated one score for PD-L1 positivity and another score for presence of an EGFR mutation, as well as an associated algorithm that would direct patients to the appropriate treatments depending on the scores.

Results for the PD-L1 deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting positivity for this ligand, with an area under the curve of 0.89 in the training cohort, 0.84 in the validation cohort, and 0.82 in an external test cohort, Dr. Mu reported. All exceeded the corresponding areas under the curve for maximal standardized uptake values.

Moreover, the score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from PD-L1 status determined by immunohistochemistry in predicting progression-free survival.

Similarly, the EGFR deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting mutational status, with an area under the curve of 0.86 in the training cohort, 0.83 in the validation cohort, and 0.81 in an external test cohort. It outperformed a clinical score based on sex, smoking status, tumor histology, and maximal standardized uptake value in each cohort.

The EGFR deep learning score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from EGFR mutational status determined by polymerase chain reaction in predicting progression-free survival.

The models showed good stability when size of the input region of interest was varied, and when different radiologists delineated the region of interest, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91.

“We developed deep learning models to predict PD-L1 status and EGFR mutation with high accuracy. Using the generated deep learning scores, we obtained a noninvasive treatment decision support tool, which may be useful as a clinical decision support tool pending validation of its clinical utility in a large prospective trial,” Dr. Mu summarized. “Using our tool, NSCLC patients could be directly offered a treatment decision without the need of biopsy.”

“In the future, we will perform a prospective observational trial to compare the results of our noninvasive treatment decision tool with molecular biomarker–based NCCN guidelines,” she said.

The investigators plan to add ALK rearrangement status and prediction of serious adverse events and cachexia to the decision support tool.

Dr. Mu disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not have specific funding.

Two recent observational studies suggest that myocarditis, at least on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, might be far less common in elite-level athletes recovering from COVID-19 than suggested in influential earlier reports.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

Both new studies documented a rate less than one-quarter as high as those previously reported from smaller cohorts, raising questions about the diagnostic yield of CMR in highly conditioned athletes with recent COVID-19 absent other evidence, such as from biomarker assays or electrocardiography (ECG).

That could have implications for some top-tier university athletics programs that mandate CMR imaging, biomarker assays, and other evaluations for myocarditis on all their players who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 before they can return to play.

The findings collectively point to CMR imaging features that might be a hallmark of an athlete’s heart, characterized by normal myocardial remodeling brought on by elite-level exercise training, which in athletes with recent COVID-19 could be misinterpreted as evidence of myocarditis. That may have thrown off prevalence estimates in the literature, the studies’ investigators speculated.

The two studies were retrospective takes on university athletes who underwent CMR imaging while recovering from COVID-19, who were either asymptomatic or with only mild to moderate symptoms and were generally without ECG or troponin evidence of myocarditis.

One of them showed a less than 2% incidence of myocarditis by CMR among 145 such cases, a low yield for imaging that is “raising doubt regarding its utility to evaluate athletes without a clinical presentation or abnormal ancillary tests to support the diagnosis of myocarditis,” argues a report published Jan. 14 in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Jitka Starekova, MD, University of Wisconsin – Madison.

“Part of the problem is that occult myocarditis is, at least with other viruses, a risk factor for sudden death in competitive athletes. So you don’t want to let one slip through the cracks,” senior author Scott B. Reeder, MD, PhD, from the same institution, said in an interview.

Whether a policy of routine CMR imaging in elite athletes who test positive for the new coronavirus is better than more selective use driven by symptoms or other screening tests is unknown. But the more pressing issue, Dr. Reeder said, “is if they have a normal electrocardiogram and troponins, do they still need cardiac magnetic resonance imaging?”

The current study, he said, “certainly provides helpful evidence that maybe we don’t need as many.”

The other study, which featured two control groups, saw a similarly low incidence of myocarditis by CMR in athletes with recent COVID-19. One of the control groups included university athletes imaged prior to the advent of SARS-CoV-2 in the university’s region of the country. The other consisted of apparently healthy adult nonathletes.

Armed with two non-COVID-19 cohorts and two athlete cohorts, the researchers found comparable rates of myocarditis by CMR in both the COVID-19 athletes and the healthy athletes. And only 3% of the COVID-19 athletes had the tell-tale CMR signs, notes the report, published Dec. 17 in Circulation, with lead author Daniel E. Clark, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

Reassurance and concern

“The incidence is much lower than we feared, and so that’s reassuring,” Clark said in an interview. Still, the athletes with myocarditis by CMR “would have been completely missed by a protocol that did not include cardiac MR, and that’s concerning,” he said. “Both had active myocarditis.”

The study’s two non-COVID-19 control groups – elite athletes in one and nonathletes in the other – allowed them to tease out the potential contribution of athletic myocardial remodeling to CMR features that could be interpreted as scar tissue, which are characterized by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE).

As it turned out, focal regions of LGE located in the right ventricular (RV) septum on the scans were often seen in both athlete cohorts. “This kind of trivial nonischemic fibrosis in the mid RV septal insertion site was common among athletic control subjects. It was seen in 24% of them, which is almost identical to the percentage that we saw in the COVID-19 athletes, 22%,” Dr. Clark said.

The LGE finding, wrote Dr. Clark and coauthors, “may represent remodeling from athletic training, and should not be conflated with myocarditis.”

Of note, the other study saw a comparable incidence of the same or a very similar CMR feature in its athletes; 26% of the Wisconsin COVID-19 athlete cohort showed limited focal LGE in the inferior RV insertion site.

“And you get a little bit in the mid-septum, as well,” Dr. Reeder said. But the sign, in the absence of any corresponding T2 abnormalities, was not judged to represent myocarditis. “We interpreted all of these studies with this potential confounder in mind.”

Conceivably, Dr. Reeder proposed, the earlier studies may have “over-called” the prevalence of myocarditis in their cohorts. “I haven’t seen their images, but it’s possible there could be false-positives.”

It’s noteworthy that the Vanderbilt and Wisconsin reports saw closely similar incidences of the tell-tale CMR sign in all the athlete cohorts whether or not COVID-19 was involved, Aaron L. Baggish, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“It looks very much like just an unrecognized part of athletic remodeling and isn’t in any way, shape, or form implicated as being a COVID-related issue,” said Dr. Baggish, who directs the cardiovascular performance program at his center and is unaffiliated with either study.

Still, that connection remains unproven given how little is yet known about the prevalence of clinically important myocarditis in milder cases of COVID-19, according to an accompanying editorial from Jonathan H. Kim, MD, MSc.

Although isolated LGE at the interventricular RV insertion site is “more commonly described among masters-level endurance athletes, the clinical significance and prevalence of this finding in youthful athletes is uncertain and should not be assumed to be a normal consequence of intense athletic training in young competitive athletes,” argued Dr. Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta.

There’s probably little about being a young competitive athlete that would render a person any more or less prone to COVID-19 cardiac involvement, Dr. Baggish said. Rather, “I think what we’re seeing, as the studies continue to come out, is that prevalence estimates are getting into the low single digits.”

The estimates are similar to those associated with influenza before the COVID-19 age; about 2% of patients showed cardiac involvement, Dr. Baggish said. “So the degree to which COVID is a special virus from this perspective, I think, is still a topic of some debate.”

The two current studies have limitations and neither is positioned to change practice, he said. “I would say that they are both kind of important, reassuring pieces of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle. But we still don’t know what the picture on the puzzle is.”
 

Routine CMR for positive cases

The University of Wisconsin group looked at all of the institution’s competitive athletes who underwent gadolinium-enhanced CMR imaging and other tests during recovery from COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic to the end of November 2020.

The imaging was performed on average about 2 weeks after a first positive SARS-CoV-2 assay result. About one-half and one-fourth of the cohort had experienced mild and moderate symptoms, respectively, and about 17% were asymptomatic; none had been hospitalized.

All CMR scans were reviewed by two experienced radiologists for, among other things, evidence of myocarditis according to modified Lake Louise criteria, the group wrote. Those criteria are based on CMR markers of fibrosis and other characteristics of scarring from myocarditis.

Such evidence was seen in only two members of the cohort, or 1.4%, one with elevated troponins but normal with respect to other biomarkers, and the other negative for all assays. Both were asymptomatic at the time of imaging, the report noted.

The Vanderbilt analysis from Dr. Clark and associates centered on 59 university athletes recently with COVID-19 who underwent CMR imaging along with other tests about 3 weeks after confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptoms had been mild in 78% of the group, and the remainder were asymptomatic.

They were compared with 60 retrospectively identified college athletes and elite-conditioned military personnel who had undergone CMR imaging prior to the advent of COVID-19, and to 27 apparently healthy nonathlete adults in whom CMR had been previously performed to define normal CMR imaging criteria at that center.

The only two post-COVID-19 athletes who met modified Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis showed no abnormalities on ECG or myocardial strain echocardiography, and had normal troponins, the group reported.

The COVID-19 athletes showed increased cardiac chamber volumes and myocardial mass “consistent with athletic remodeling,” compared with the healthy control subjects, the group wrote. But “most standard CMR parameters were similar” between the COVID-19 athletes and the control athletes, consistent with the 22% and 24% rates, respectively, for the finding of focal late LGE isolated to the inferoseptal RV insertion site.

At the end of the day, all published experiences on athletes with recent COVID-19 “are descriptive studies, without any hint of follow-up,” Dr. Baggish noted, so their clinical implications are unknown.

“We need time to sit and watch to see what happens to these individuals,” he said. “And if the answer is nothing, then that’s a very reassuring story. If the answer is that we start to see events, then that’s really important for us to take stock of.”

Dr. Starekova had no disclosures. Dr. Reeder reports that the University of Wisconsin receives research support from GE Healthcare and Bracco Diagnostics; and that he has ownership interests in Calimetrix, Reveal Pharmaceuticals, Cellectar Biosciences, Elucent Medical, and HeartVista; and has received grant support from Bayer Healthcare. Disclosures for the other coauthors are in the report. Dr. Clark and coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Baggish reported no conflicts. Kim discloses receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; compensation as team cardiologist for the Atlanta Falcons; and research stipends from the Atlanta Track Club.

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

Two recent observational studies suggest that myocarditis, at least on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, might be far less common in elite-level athletes recovering from COVID-19 than suggested in influential earlier reports.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

Both new studies documented a rate less than one-quarter as high as those previously reported from smaller cohorts, raising questions about the diagnostic yield of CMR in highly conditioned athletes with recent COVID-19 absent other evidence, such as from biomarker assays or electrocardiography (ECG).

That could have implications for some top-tier university athletics programs that mandate CMR imaging, biomarker assays, and other evaluations for myocarditis on all their players who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 before they can return to play.

The findings collectively point to CMR imaging features that might be a hallmark of an athlete’s heart, characterized by normal myocardial remodeling brought on by elite-level exercise training, which in athletes with recent COVID-19 could be misinterpreted as evidence of myocarditis. That may have thrown off prevalence estimates in the literature, the studies’ investigators speculated.

The two studies were retrospective takes on university athletes who underwent CMR imaging while recovering from COVID-19, who were either asymptomatic or with only mild to moderate symptoms and were generally without ECG or troponin evidence of myocarditis.

One of them showed a less than 2% incidence of myocarditis by CMR among 145 such cases, a low yield for imaging that is “raising doubt regarding its utility to evaluate athletes without a clinical presentation or abnormal ancillary tests to support the diagnosis of myocarditis,” argues a report published Jan. 14 in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Jitka Starekova, MD, University of Wisconsin – Madison.

“Part of the problem is that occult myocarditis is, at least with other viruses, a risk factor for sudden death in competitive athletes. So you don’t want to let one slip through the cracks,” senior author Scott B. Reeder, MD, PhD, from the same institution, said in an interview.

Whether a policy of routine CMR imaging in elite athletes who test positive for the new coronavirus is better than more selective use driven by symptoms or other screening tests is unknown. But the more pressing issue, Dr. Reeder said, “is if they have a normal electrocardiogram and troponins, do they still need cardiac magnetic resonance imaging?”

The current study, he said, “certainly provides helpful evidence that maybe we don’t need as many.”

The other study, which featured two control groups, saw a similarly low incidence of myocarditis by CMR in athletes with recent COVID-19. One of the control groups included university athletes imaged prior to the advent of SARS-CoV-2 in the university’s region of the country. The other consisted of apparently healthy adult nonathletes.

Armed with two non-COVID-19 cohorts and two athlete cohorts, the researchers found comparable rates of myocarditis by CMR in both the COVID-19 athletes and the healthy athletes. And only 3% of the COVID-19 athletes had the tell-tale CMR signs, notes the report, published Dec. 17 in Circulation, with lead author Daniel E. Clark, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

Reassurance and concern

“The incidence is much lower than we feared, and so that’s reassuring,” Clark said in an interview. Still, the athletes with myocarditis by CMR “would have been completely missed by a protocol that did not include cardiac MR, and that’s concerning,” he said. “Both had active myocarditis.”

The study’s two non-COVID-19 control groups – elite athletes in one and nonathletes in the other – allowed them to tease out the potential contribution of athletic myocardial remodeling to CMR features that could be interpreted as scar tissue, which are characterized by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE).

As it turned out, focal regions of LGE located in the right ventricular (RV) septum on the scans were often seen in both athlete cohorts. “This kind of trivial nonischemic fibrosis in the mid RV septal insertion site was common among athletic control subjects. It was seen in 24% of them, which is almost identical to the percentage that we saw in the COVID-19 athletes, 22%,” Dr. Clark said.

The LGE finding, wrote Dr. Clark and coauthors, “may represent remodeling from athletic training, and should not be conflated with myocarditis.”

Of note, the other study saw a comparable incidence of the same or a very similar CMR feature in its athletes; 26% of the Wisconsin COVID-19 athlete cohort showed limited focal LGE in the inferior RV insertion site.

“And you get a little bit in the mid-septum, as well,” Dr. Reeder said. But the sign, in the absence of any corresponding T2 abnormalities, was not judged to represent myocarditis. “We interpreted all of these studies with this potential confounder in mind.”

Conceivably, Dr. Reeder proposed, the earlier studies may have “over-called” the prevalence of myocarditis in their cohorts. “I haven’t seen their images, but it’s possible there could be false-positives.”

It’s noteworthy that the Vanderbilt and Wisconsin reports saw closely similar incidences of the tell-tale CMR sign in all the athlete cohorts whether or not COVID-19 was involved, Aaron L. Baggish, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“It looks very much like just an unrecognized part of athletic remodeling and isn’t in any way, shape, or form implicated as being a COVID-related issue,” said Dr. Baggish, who directs the cardiovascular performance program at his center and is unaffiliated with either study.

Still, that connection remains unproven given how little is yet known about the prevalence of clinically important myocarditis in milder cases of COVID-19, according to an accompanying editorial from Jonathan H. Kim, MD, MSc.

Although isolated LGE at the interventricular RV insertion site is “more commonly described among masters-level endurance athletes, the clinical significance and prevalence of this finding in youthful athletes is uncertain and should not be assumed to be a normal consequence of intense athletic training in young competitive athletes,” argued Dr. Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta.

There’s probably little about being a young competitive athlete that would render a person any more or less prone to COVID-19 cardiac involvement, Dr. Baggish said. Rather, “I think what we’re seeing, as the studies continue to come out, is that prevalence estimates are getting into the low single digits.”

The estimates are similar to those associated with influenza before the COVID-19 age; about 2% of patients showed cardiac involvement, Dr. Baggish said. “So the degree to which COVID is a special virus from this perspective, I think, is still a topic of some debate.”

The two current studies have limitations and neither is positioned to change practice, he said. “I would say that they are both kind of important, reassuring pieces of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle. But we still don’t know what the picture on the puzzle is.”
 

Routine CMR for positive cases

The University of Wisconsin group looked at all of the institution’s competitive athletes who underwent gadolinium-enhanced CMR imaging and other tests during recovery from COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic to the end of November 2020.

The imaging was performed on average about 2 weeks after a first positive SARS-CoV-2 assay result. About one-half and one-fourth of the cohort had experienced mild and moderate symptoms, respectively, and about 17% were asymptomatic; none had been hospitalized.

All CMR scans were reviewed by two experienced radiologists for, among other things, evidence of myocarditis according to modified Lake Louise criteria, the group wrote. Those criteria are based on CMR markers of fibrosis and other characteristics of scarring from myocarditis.

Such evidence was seen in only two members of the cohort, or 1.4%, one with elevated troponins but normal with respect to other biomarkers, and the other negative for all assays. Both were asymptomatic at the time of imaging, the report noted.

The Vanderbilt analysis from Dr. Clark and associates centered on 59 university athletes recently with COVID-19 who underwent CMR imaging along with other tests about 3 weeks after confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptoms had been mild in 78% of the group, and the remainder were asymptomatic.

They were compared with 60 retrospectively identified college athletes and elite-conditioned military personnel who had undergone CMR imaging prior to the advent of COVID-19, and to 27 apparently healthy nonathlete adults in whom CMR had been previously performed to define normal CMR imaging criteria at that center.

The only two post-COVID-19 athletes who met modified Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis showed no abnormalities on ECG or myocardial strain echocardiography, and had normal troponins, the group reported.

The COVID-19 athletes showed increased cardiac chamber volumes and myocardial mass “consistent with athletic remodeling,” compared with the healthy control subjects, the group wrote. But “most standard CMR parameters were similar” between the COVID-19 athletes and the control athletes, consistent with the 22% and 24% rates, respectively, for the finding of focal late LGE isolated to the inferoseptal RV insertion site.

At the end of the day, all published experiences on athletes with recent COVID-19 “are descriptive studies, without any hint of follow-up,” Dr. Baggish noted, so their clinical implications are unknown.

“We need time to sit and watch to see what happens to these individuals,” he said. “And if the answer is nothing, then that’s a very reassuring story. If the answer is that we start to see events, then that’s really important for us to take stock of.”

Dr. Starekova had no disclosures. Dr. Reeder reports that the University of Wisconsin receives research support from GE Healthcare and Bracco Diagnostics; and that he has ownership interests in Calimetrix, Reveal Pharmaceuticals, Cellectar Biosciences, Elucent Medical, and HeartVista; and has received grant support from Bayer Healthcare. Disclosures for the other coauthors are in the report. Dr. Clark and coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Baggish reported no conflicts. Kim discloses receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; compensation as team cardiologist for the Atlanta Falcons; and research stipends from the Atlanta Track Club.

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

Two recent observational studies suggest that myocarditis, at least on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, might be far less common in elite-level athletes recovering from COVID-19 than suggested in influential earlier reports.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

Both new studies documented a rate less than one-quarter as high as those previously reported from smaller cohorts, raising questions about the diagnostic yield of CMR in highly conditioned athletes with recent COVID-19 absent other evidence, such as from biomarker assays or electrocardiography (ECG).

That could have implications for some top-tier university athletics programs that mandate CMR imaging, biomarker assays, and other evaluations for myocarditis on all their players who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 before they can return to play.

The findings collectively point to CMR imaging features that might be a hallmark of an athlete’s heart, characterized by normal myocardial remodeling brought on by elite-level exercise training, which in athletes with recent COVID-19 could be misinterpreted as evidence of myocarditis. That may have thrown off prevalence estimates in the literature, the studies’ investigators speculated.

The two studies were retrospective takes on university athletes who underwent CMR imaging while recovering from COVID-19, who were either asymptomatic or with only mild to moderate symptoms and were generally without ECG or troponin evidence of myocarditis.

One of them showed a less than 2% incidence of myocarditis by CMR among 145 such cases, a low yield for imaging that is “raising doubt regarding its utility to evaluate athletes without a clinical presentation or abnormal ancillary tests to support the diagnosis of myocarditis,” argues a report published Jan. 14 in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Jitka Starekova, MD, University of Wisconsin – Madison.

“Part of the problem is that occult myocarditis is, at least with other viruses, a risk factor for sudden death in competitive athletes. So you don’t want to let one slip through the cracks,” senior author Scott B. Reeder, MD, PhD, from the same institution, said in an interview.

Whether a policy of routine CMR imaging in elite athletes who test positive for the new coronavirus is better than more selective use driven by symptoms or other screening tests is unknown. But the more pressing issue, Dr. Reeder said, “is if they have a normal electrocardiogram and troponins, do they still need cardiac magnetic resonance imaging?”

The current study, he said, “certainly provides helpful evidence that maybe we don’t need as many.”

The other study, which featured two control groups, saw a similarly low incidence of myocarditis by CMR in athletes with recent COVID-19. One of the control groups included university athletes imaged prior to the advent of SARS-CoV-2 in the university’s region of the country. The other consisted of apparently healthy adult nonathletes.

Armed with two non-COVID-19 cohorts and two athlete cohorts, the researchers found comparable rates of myocarditis by CMR in both the COVID-19 athletes and the healthy athletes. And only 3% of the COVID-19 athletes had the tell-tale CMR signs, notes the report, published Dec. 17 in Circulation, with lead author Daniel E. Clark, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

Reassurance and concern

“The incidence is much lower than we feared, and so that’s reassuring,” Clark said in an interview. Still, the athletes with myocarditis by CMR “would have been completely missed by a protocol that did not include cardiac MR, and that’s concerning,” he said. “Both had active myocarditis.”

The study’s two non-COVID-19 control groups – elite athletes in one and nonathletes in the other – allowed them to tease out the potential contribution of athletic myocardial remodeling to CMR features that could be interpreted as scar tissue, which are characterized by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE).

As it turned out, focal regions of LGE located in the right ventricular (RV) septum on the scans were often seen in both athlete cohorts. “This kind of trivial nonischemic fibrosis in the mid RV septal insertion site was common among athletic control subjects. It was seen in 24% of them, which is almost identical to the percentage that we saw in the COVID-19 athletes, 22%,” Dr. Clark said.

The LGE finding, wrote Dr. Clark and coauthors, “may represent remodeling from athletic training, and should not be conflated with myocarditis.”

Of note, the other study saw a comparable incidence of the same or a very similar CMR feature in its athletes; 26% of the Wisconsin COVID-19 athlete cohort showed limited focal LGE in the inferior RV insertion site.

“And you get a little bit in the mid-septum, as well,” Dr. Reeder said. But the sign, in the absence of any corresponding T2 abnormalities, was not judged to represent myocarditis. “We interpreted all of these studies with this potential confounder in mind.”

Conceivably, Dr. Reeder proposed, the earlier studies may have “over-called” the prevalence of myocarditis in their cohorts. “I haven’t seen their images, but it’s possible there could be false-positives.”

It’s noteworthy that the Vanderbilt and Wisconsin reports saw closely similar incidences of the tell-tale CMR sign in all the athlete cohorts whether or not COVID-19 was involved, Aaron L. Baggish, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“It looks very much like just an unrecognized part of athletic remodeling and isn’t in any way, shape, or form implicated as being a COVID-related issue,” said Dr. Baggish, who directs the cardiovascular performance program at his center and is unaffiliated with either study.

Still, that connection remains unproven given how little is yet known about the prevalence of clinically important myocarditis in milder cases of COVID-19, according to an accompanying editorial from Jonathan H. Kim, MD, MSc.

Although isolated LGE at the interventricular RV insertion site is “more commonly described among masters-level endurance athletes, the clinical significance and prevalence of this finding in youthful athletes is uncertain and should not be assumed to be a normal consequence of intense athletic training in young competitive athletes,” argued Dr. Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta.

There’s probably little about being a young competitive athlete that would render a person any more or less prone to COVID-19 cardiac involvement, Dr. Baggish said. Rather, “I think what we’re seeing, as the studies continue to come out, is that prevalence estimates are getting into the low single digits.”

The estimates are similar to those associated with influenza before the COVID-19 age; about 2% of patients showed cardiac involvement, Dr. Baggish said. “So the degree to which COVID is a special virus from this perspective, I think, is still a topic of some debate.”

The two current studies have limitations and neither is positioned to change practice, he said. “I would say that they are both kind of important, reassuring pieces of an unfinished jigsaw puzzle. But we still don’t know what the picture on the puzzle is.”
 

Routine CMR for positive cases

The University of Wisconsin group looked at all of the institution’s competitive athletes who underwent gadolinium-enhanced CMR imaging and other tests during recovery from COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic to the end of November 2020.

The imaging was performed on average about 2 weeks after a first positive SARS-CoV-2 assay result. About one-half and one-fourth of the cohort had experienced mild and moderate symptoms, respectively, and about 17% were asymptomatic; none had been hospitalized.

All CMR scans were reviewed by two experienced radiologists for, among other things, evidence of myocarditis according to modified Lake Louise criteria, the group wrote. Those criteria are based on CMR markers of fibrosis and other characteristics of scarring from myocarditis.

Such evidence was seen in only two members of the cohort, or 1.4%, one with elevated troponins but normal with respect to other biomarkers, and the other negative for all assays. Both were asymptomatic at the time of imaging, the report noted.

The Vanderbilt analysis from Dr. Clark and associates centered on 59 university athletes recently with COVID-19 who underwent CMR imaging along with other tests about 3 weeks after confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptoms had been mild in 78% of the group, and the remainder were asymptomatic.

They were compared with 60 retrospectively identified college athletes and elite-conditioned military personnel who had undergone CMR imaging prior to the advent of COVID-19, and to 27 apparently healthy nonathlete adults in whom CMR had been previously performed to define normal CMR imaging criteria at that center.

The only two post-COVID-19 athletes who met modified Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis showed no abnormalities on ECG or myocardial strain echocardiography, and had normal troponins, the group reported.

The COVID-19 athletes showed increased cardiac chamber volumes and myocardial mass “consistent with athletic remodeling,” compared with the healthy control subjects, the group wrote. But “most standard CMR parameters were similar” between the COVID-19 athletes and the control athletes, consistent with the 22% and 24% rates, respectively, for the finding of focal late LGE isolated to the inferoseptal RV insertion site.

At the end of the day, all published experiences on athletes with recent COVID-19 “are descriptive studies, without any hint of follow-up,” Dr. Baggish noted, so their clinical implications are unknown.

“We need time to sit and watch to see what happens to these individuals,” he said. “And if the answer is nothing, then that’s a very reassuring story. If the answer is that we start to see events, then that’s really important for us to take stock of.”

Dr. Starekova had no disclosures. Dr. Reeder reports that the University of Wisconsin receives research support from GE Healthcare and Bracco Diagnostics; and that he has ownership interests in Calimetrix, Reveal Pharmaceuticals, Cellectar Biosciences, Elucent Medical, and HeartVista; and has received grant support from Bayer Healthcare. Disclosures for the other coauthors are in the report. Dr. Clark and coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Baggish reported no conflicts. Kim discloses receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; compensation as team cardiologist for the Atlanta Falcons; and research stipends from the Atlanta Track Club.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease showed increases in overall mortality, respiratory mortality, and cancer mortality, compared with RA patients without interstitial lung disease, based on data from more than 500,000 patients in a nationwide cohort study.

RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) has been associated with worse survival rates as well as reduced quality of life, functional impairment, and increased health care use and costs, wrote Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on the incidence and prevalence of RA-ILD have been inconsistent and large studies are lacking.

In a study published online in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 509,787 RA patients aged 65 years and older from Medicare claims data. The average age of the patients was 72.6 years, and 76.2% were women.

At baseline, 10,306 (2%) of the study population had RA-ILD, and 13,372 (2.7%) developed RA-ILD over an average of 3.8 years’ follow-up per person (total of 1,873,127 person-years of follow-up). The overall incidence of RA-ILD was 7.14 per 1,000 person-years.

Overall mortality was significantly higher among RA-ILD patients than in those with RA alone in a multivariate analysis (38.7% vs. 20.7%; hazard ratio, 1.66).

In addition, RA-ILD was associated with an increased risk of respiratory mortality (HR, 4.39) and cancer mortality (HR, 1.56), compared with RA without ILD. For these hazard regression analyses, the researchers used Fine and Gray subdistribution HRs “to handle competing risks of alternative causes of mortality. For example, the risk of respiratory mortality for patients with RA-ILD, compared with RA without ILD also accounted for the competing risk of cardiovascular, cancer, infection and other types of mortality.”

Case courtesy A.Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 12274

In another multivariate analysis, male gender, smoking, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and medication use (specifically biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, targeted synthetic DMARDs, and glucocorticoids) were independently associated with increased incident RA-ILD at baseline. However, “the associations of RA-related medications with incident RA-ILD risk should be interpreted with caution since they may be explained by unmeasured factors, including RA disease activity, severity, comorbidities, and prior or concomitant medication use,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on disease activity, disease duration, disease severity, and RA-related autoantibodies, the researchers noted. However, the results support data from previous studies and were strengthened by the large sample size and data on demographics and health care use.

“Ours is the first to study the epidemiology and mortality outcomes of RA-ILD using a validated claims algorithm to identify RA and RA-ILD,” and “to quantify the mortality burden of RA-ILD and to identify a potentially novel association of RA-ILD with cancer mortality,” they noted.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Lead author Dr. Sparks disclosed support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Brigham Research Institute, and the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund. Dr. Sparks also disclosed serving as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to the current study. Other authors reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, involvement in a clinical trial funded by Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and receiving research support to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for other studies from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vertex.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease showed increases in overall mortality, respiratory mortality, and cancer mortality, compared with RA patients without interstitial lung disease, based on data from more than 500,000 patients in a nationwide cohort study.

RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) has been associated with worse survival rates as well as reduced quality of life, functional impairment, and increased health care use and costs, wrote Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on the incidence and prevalence of RA-ILD have been inconsistent and large studies are lacking.

In a study published online in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 509,787 RA patients aged 65 years and older from Medicare claims data. The average age of the patients was 72.6 years, and 76.2% were women.

At baseline, 10,306 (2%) of the study population had RA-ILD, and 13,372 (2.7%) developed RA-ILD over an average of 3.8 years’ follow-up per person (total of 1,873,127 person-years of follow-up). The overall incidence of RA-ILD was 7.14 per 1,000 person-years.

Overall mortality was significantly higher among RA-ILD patients than in those with RA alone in a multivariate analysis (38.7% vs. 20.7%; hazard ratio, 1.66).

In addition, RA-ILD was associated with an increased risk of respiratory mortality (HR, 4.39) and cancer mortality (HR, 1.56), compared with RA without ILD. For these hazard regression analyses, the researchers used Fine and Gray subdistribution HRs “to handle competing risks of alternative causes of mortality. For example, the risk of respiratory mortality for patients with RA-ILD, compared with RA without ILD also accounted for the competing risk of cardiovascular, cancer, infection and other types of mortality.”

Case courtesy A.Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 12274

In another multivariate analysis, male gender, smoking, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and medication use (specifically biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, targeted synthetic DMARDs, and glucocorticoids) were independently associated with increased incident RA-ILD at baseline. However, “the associations of RA-related medications with incident RA-ILD risk should be interpreted with caution since they may be explained by unmeasured factors, including RA disease activity, severity, comorbidities, and prior or concomitant medication use,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on disease activity, disease duration, disease severity, and RA-related autoantibodies, the researchers noted. However, the results support data from previous studies and were strengthened by the large sample size and data on demographics and health care use.

“Ours is the first to study the epidemiology and mortality outcomes of RA-ILD using a validated claims algorithm to identify RA and RA-ILD,” and “to quantify the mortality burden of RA-ILD and to identify a potentially novel association of RA-ILD with cancer mortality,” they noted.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Lead author Dr. Sparks disclosed support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Brigham Research Institute, and the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund. Dr. Sparks also disclosed serving as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to the current study. Other authors reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, involvement in a clinical trial funded by Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and receiving research support to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for other studies from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vertex.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease showed increases in overall mortality, respiratory mortality, and cancer mortality, compared with RA patients without interstitial lung disease, based on data from more than 500,000 patients in a nationwide cohort study.

RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) has been associated with worse survival rates as well as reduced quality of life, functional impairment, and increased health care use and costs, wrote Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. However, data on the incidence and prevalence of RA-ILD have been inconsistent and large studies are lacking.

In a study published online in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 509,787 RA patients aged 65 years and older from Medicare claims data. The average age of the patients was 72.6 years, and 76.2% were women.

At baseline, 10,306 (2%) of the study population had RA-ILD, and 13,372 (2.7%) developed RA-ILD over an average of 3.8 years’ follow-up per person (total of 1,873,127 person-years of follow-up). The overall incidence of RA-ILD was 7.14 per 1,000 person-years.

Overall mortality was significantly higher among RA-ILD patients than in those with RA alone in a multivariate analysis (38.7% vs. 20.7%; hazard ratio, 1.66).

In addition, RA-ILD was associated with an increased risk of respiratory mortality (HR, 4.39) and cancer mortality (HR, 1.56), compared with RA without ILD. For these hazard regression analyses, the researchers used Fine and Gray subdistribution HRs “to handle competing risks of alternative causes of mortality. For example, the risk of respiratory mortality for patients with RA-ILD, compared with RA without ILD also accounted for the competing risk of cardiovascular, cancer, infection and other types of mortality.”

Case courtesy A.Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org, rID: 12274

In another multivariate analysis, male gender, smoking, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and medication use (specifically biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, targeted synthetic DMARDs, and glucocorticoids) were independently associated with increased incident RA-ILD at baseline. However, “the associations of RA-related medications with incident RA-ILD risk should be interpreted with caution since they may be explained by unmeasured factors, including RA disease activity, severity, comorbidities, and prior or concomitant medication use,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on disease activity, disease duration, disease severity, and RA-related autoantibodies, the researchers noted. However, the results support data from previous studies and were strengthened by the large sample size and data on demographics and health care use.

“Ours is the first to study the epidemiology and mortality outcomes of RA-ILD using a validated claims algorithm to identify RA and RA-ILD,” and “to quantify the mortality burden of RA-ILD and to identify a potentially novel association of RA-ILD with cancer mortality,” they noted.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Lead author Dr. Sparks disclosed support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Brigham Research Institute, and the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund. Dr. Sparks also disclosed serving as a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to the current study. Other authors reported research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, involvement in a clinical trial funded by Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and receiving research support to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for other studies from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vertex.

The U.K.’s B117 variant is circulating in at least 24 states, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 variant surveillance. The CDC projects that the U.K. variant will become the dominant strain in the United States by March.

From any vantage point, the United Kingdom appears to be in the crosshairs of COVID-19: Weeks after a new, highly contagious variant emerged that fueled a surge in cases and fresh lockdowns, the United Kingdom was revealed to have the world’s highest coronavirus death rate.

But the United Kingdom also has a not-so-secret weapon of its own: A genomic sequencing program widely believed to be the most coordinated and advanced any nation has forged. In the vise grip of the virus, the Brits have gleaned key insights into the behavior and consequences of SARS-CoV-2.

But B117 is also notable for what it is missing: In this case, producing a negative result on certain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in the spike protein, or S-gene.

One of the S-gene mutations specific to the variant deletes two amino acids, causing that portion of the PCR test to show up negative. The coincidental finding known as an S-gene target failure has become an integral proxy to help track where and when the variant is spreading in the United Kingdom, where about 5% of samples from COVID-19–infected patients are sequenced, said Sharon Peacock, PhD, executive director and chair of the COVID-19 Genomics U.K. Consortium.

That same tactic could prove valuable to clinicians similarly overwhelmed with cases and deaths but lacking high-level sequencing information on the virus, Dr. Peacock said in an interview. A British report released Friday stated that there is a “realistic possibility” that the variant has a higher death rate than other cases of SARS-CoV-2.

“In this particular variant, a deletion in the genome leads to one part of the diagnostic test failing,” Dr. Peacock explained. “Several targets are positive, but this is negative. In the U.K., this has been used as a surrogate marker.”
 

Targeting an invisible adversary

B117 is not the only variant that produces this result, Dr. Peacock cautioned, “but in screening for it, you can have this in mind.”

“Since the U.K. is sequencing about 5% of the cases they detect, this gives them really important clues about what’s happening there,” said Anderson Brito, PhD, a virologist and postdoctoral researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., where investigators are creating custom PCR tests to detect the B117 variant.

Dr. Brito, who lived in the United Kingdom for 4 years while studying for his doctorate at Imperial College London, said a “major advantage” is the more unified process to collect and sequence samples. Crucial information – including the date and place of collection – comes with each sample, which fuels not only sequencing, but an epidemiologic perspective.

“They’re not in the dark at all,” Dr. Brito said in an interview. “I think no other country in the world knows better which virus lineages are circulating.”

The CDC launched the SPHERES consortium in May 2020 to coordinate the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes across the United States.

But American genomic efforts are “not as centralized,” said Dr. Brito, whose lab detected the first two cases of the U.K. variant in Connecticut on Jan. 6. “We struggle to get samples, because they’re decentralized to a level where there’s little coordination between hospitals and research centers. They’re not as connected as in the U.K. If we just get a sample and it has no date of collection and no origin information, for example, it’s basically useless.”

Global genomic collaborations include GISAID, an international database where researchers share new genomes from various coronaviruses. As of mid-January, the United States had submitted about 68,000 sequences to GISAID, adding about 3,000 new samples every week and expecting even more from commercial labs in coming days, according to the CDC.

“The U.K. is definitely much more on top of looking for variants as they pop up,” said Gigi Gronvall, PhD, an immunologist and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore. “The U.S. has now turned that up.”
 

Warning from British scientists to the world

Despite these genomic accomplishments, some British scientists said they have regrets too, wishing they’d known just how rapidly SARS-CoV-2 was actually spreading a year ago, when it hit western Europe.

That information was crucial not only for preventive efforts, but because viruses inevitably mutate faster the more people who are infected, said Igor Rudan, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Global Health Research at University of Edinburgh.

“Italy showed us just how fast it was spreading and how deadly it is for the very old and people with multiple comorbidities,” said Dr. Rudan, who also editor in chief of the Journal of Global Health. “We wish we knew it was spreading so fast, and we wish we knew the threshold of cases we could allow to be infected before the virus would mutate.”

More mutations mean more new strains of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Rudan said in an interview. “We’ve reached that threshold now and will see more of these mutations.”

Despite its current struggles, the United Kingdom is reaching beyond tracking its new variant’s spread and trying to identify new mutations that might change the way the virus behaves.

Three features of any emerging variant are particularly important, Dr. Peacock explained: Is it more transmissible? Is it more lethal? And does it cut the ability of natural- or vaccine-induced immunity to protect people from infection?

“We need to sequence people coming to the hospital who are sicker,” said Dr. Peacock, also a professor of public health and microbiology at the University of Cambridge (England). “Also, if anyone has the infection after they’ve already been sick or had the vaccine, we really want to know what that looks like” genomically.

SARS-CoV-2 has already logged more than 4,000 mutations, Dr. Peacock said. But “knowing that viruses mutate all the time is not sufficient reason not to look. We really want to know if mutations lead to changes in amino acids, and if that can lead to changes in functionality.”

For the moment, however, experts say they’re relieved that the U.K. strain doesn’t seem able to evade COVID-19 vaccines or render them less effective.

“Even though mutations are common, those able to change the viral coding are rare,” Dr. Brito explained. If necessary, vaccines could be tweaked to replace the spike gene sequence “within a matter of weeks. We already do this for flu vaccines. Every year, we have to monitor variants of the virus circulating to develop a vaccine that covers most of them. If we end up having to do it for SARS-CoV-2, I would not be surprised.”

But variant-fueled increases in infections will require more people to be vaccinated before herd immunity can be achieved, Dr. Rudan warned. “If it spreads faster, we’ll need to vaccinate probably 85% of people versus 70% to reach herd immunity.”

One lesson the COVID-19 pandemic has driven home “is to always be on your guard about what happens next,” Dr. Peacock said. Although confident about the genomic efforts in the United Kingdom to date, she and her colleagues feel they’re still reaching for a complete understanding of the evolutionary changes of the virus.

“We’re ahead of the curve right now, but we want to get in front of the curve,” Dr. Peacock said. “It’s essential to get ahead of what might be around the corner because we don’t know how the virus is going to evolve.”

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

The U.K.’s B117 variant is circulating in at least 24 states, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 variant surveillance. The CDC projects that the U.K. variant will become the dominant strain in the United States by March.

From any vantage point, the United Kingdom appears to be in the crosshairs of COVID-19: Weeks after a new, highly contagious variant emerged that fueled a surge in cases and fresh lockdowns, the United Kingdom was revealed to have the world’s highest coronavirus death rate.

But the United Kingdom also has a not-so-secret weapon of its own: A genomic sequencing program widely believed to be the most coordinated and advanced any nation has forged. In the vise grip of the virus, the Brits have gleaned key insights into the behavior and consequences of SARS-CoV-2.

But B117 is also notable for what it is missing: In this case, producing a negative result on certain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in the spike protein, or S-gene.

One of the S-gene mutations specific to the variant deletes two amino acids, causing that portion of the PCR test to show up negative. The coincidental finding known as an S-gene target failure has become an integral proxy to help track where and when the variant is spreading in the United Kingdom, where about 5% of samples from COVID-19–infected patients are sequenced, said Sharon Peacock, PhD, executive director and chair of the COVID-19 Genomics U.K. Consortium.

That same tactic could prove valuable to clinicians similarly overwhelmed with cases and deaths but lacking high-level sequencing information on the virus, Dr. Peacock said in an interview. A British report released Friday stated that there is a “realistic possibility” that the variant has a higher death rate than other cases of SARS-CoV-2.

“In this particular variant, a deletion in the genome leads to one part of the diagnostic test failing,” Dr. Peacock explained. “Several targets are positive, but this is negative. In the U.K., this has been used as a surrogate marker.”
 

Targeting an invisible adversary

B117 is not the only variant that produces this result, Dr. Peacock cautioned, “but in screening for it, you can have this in mind.”

“Since the U.K. is sequencing about 5% of the cases they detect, this gives them really important clues about what’s happening there,” said Anderson Brito, PhD, a virologist and postdoctoral researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., where investigators are creating custom PCR tests to detect the B117 variant.

Dr. Brito, who lived in the United Kingdom for 4 years while studying for his doctorate at Imperial College London, said a “major advantage” is the more unified process to collect and sequence samples. Crucial information – including the date and place of collection – comes with each sample, which fuels not only sequencing, but an epidemiologic perspective.

“They’re not in the dark at all,” Dr. Brito said in an interview. “I think no other country in the world knows better which virus lineages are circulating.”

The CDC launched the SPHERES consortium in May 2020 to coordinate the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes across the United States.

But American genomic efforts are “not as centralized,” said Dr. Brito, whose lab detected the first two cases of the U.K. variant in Connecticut on Jan. 6. “We struggle to get samples, because they’re decentralized to a level where there’s little coordination between hospitals and research centers. They’re not as connected as in the U.K. If we just get a sample and it has no date of collection and no origin information, for example, it’s basically useless.”

Global genomic collaborations include GISAID, an international database where researchers share new genomes from various coronaviruses. As of mid-January, the United States had submitted about 68,000 sequences to GISAID, adding about 3,000 new samples every week and expecting even more from commercial labs in coming days, according to the CDC.

“The U.K. is definitely much more on top of looking for variants as they pop up,” said Gigi Gronvall, PhD, an immunologist and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore. “The U.S. has now turned that up.”
 

Warning from British scientists to the world

Despite these genomic accomplishments, some British scientists said they have regrets too, wishing they’d known just how rapidly SARS-CoV-2 was actually spreading a year ago, when it hit western Europe.

That information was crucial not only for preventive efforts, but because viruses inevitably mutate faster the more people who are infected, said Igor Rudan, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Global Health Research at University of Edinburgh.

“Italy showed us just how fast it was spreading and how deadly it is for the very old and people with multiple comorbidities,” said Dr. Rudan, who also editor in chief of the Journal of Global Health. “We wish we knew it was spreading so fast, and we wish we knew the threshold of cases we could allow to be infected before the virus would mutate.”

More mutations mean more new strains of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Rudan said in an interview. “We’ve reached that threshold now and will see more of these mutations.”

Despite its current struggles, the United Kingdom is reaching beyond tracking its new variant’s spread and trying to identify new mutations that might change the way the virus behaves.

Three features of any emerging variant are particularly important, Dr. Peacock explained: Is it more transmissible? Is it more lethal? And does it cut the ability of natural- or vaccine-induced immunity to protect people from infection?

“We need to sequence people coming to the hospital who are sicker,” said Dr. Peacock, also a professor of public health and microbiology at the University of Cambridge (England). “Also, if anyone has the infection after they’ve already been sick or had the vaccine, we really want to know what that looks like” genomically.

SARS-CoV-2 has already logged more than 4,000 mutations, Dr. Peacock said. But “knowing that viruses mutate all the time is not sufficient reason not to look. We really want to know if mutations lead to changes in amino acids, and if that can lead to changes in functionality.”

For the moment, however, experts say they’re relieved that the U.K. strain doesn’t seem able to evade COVID-19 vaccines or render them less effective.

“Even though mutations are common, those able to change the viral coding are rare,” Dr. Brito explained. If necessary, vaccines could be tweaked to replace the spike gene sequence “within a matter of weeks. We already do this for flu vaccines. Every year, we have to monitor variants of the virus circulating to develop a vaccine that covers most of them. If we end up having to do it for SARS-CoV-2, I would not be surprised.”

But variant-fueled increases in infections will require more people to be vaccinated before herd immunity can be achieved, Dr. Rudan warned. “If it spreads faster, we’ll need to vaccinate probably 85% of people versus 70% to reach herd immunity.”

One lesson the COVID-19 pandemic has driven home “is to always be on your guard about what happens next,” Dr. Peacock said. Although confident about the genomic efforts in the United Kingdom to date, she and her colleagues feel they’re still reaching for a complete understanding of the evolutionary changes of the virus.

“We’re ahead of the curve right now, but we want to get in front of the curve,” Dr. Peacock said. “It’s essential to get ahead of what might be around the corner because we don’t know how the virus is going to evolve.”

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

The U.K.’s B117 variant is circulating in at least 24 states, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 variant surveillance. The CDC projects that the U.K. variant will become the dominant strain in the United States by March.

From any vantage point, the United Kingdom appears to be in the crosshairs of COVID-19: Weeks after a new, highly contagious variant emerged that fueled a surge in cases and fresh lockdowns, the United Kingdom was revealed to have the world’s highest coronavirus death rate.

But the United Kingdom also has a not-so-secret weapon of its own: A genomic sequencing program widely believed to be the most coordinated and advanced any nation has forged. In the vise grip of the virus, the Brits have gleaned key insights into the behavior and consequences of SARS-CoV-2.

But B117 is also notable for what it is missing: In this case, producing a negative result on certain polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in the spike protein, or S-gene.

One of the S-gene mutations specific to the variant deletes two amino acids, causing that portion of the PCR test to show up negative. The coincidental finding known as an S-gene target failure has become an integral proxy to help track where and when the variant is spreading in the United Kingdom, where about 5% of samples from COVID-19–infected patients are sequenced, said Sharon Peacock, PhD, executive director and chair of the COVID-19 Genomics U.K. Consortium.

That same tactic could prove valuable to clinicians similarly overwhelmed with cases and deaths but lacking high-level sequencing information on the virus, Dr. Peacock said in an interview. A British report released Friday stated that there is a “realistic possibility” that the variant has a higher death rate than other cases of SARS-CoV-2.

“In this particular variant, a deletion in the genome leads to one part of the diagnostic test failing,” Dr. Peacock explained. “Several targets are positive, but this is negative. In the U.K., this has been used as a surrogate marker.”
 

Targeting an invisible adversary

B117 is not the only variant that produces this result, Dr. Peacock cautioned, “but in screening for it, you can have this in mind.”

“Since the U.K. is sequencing about 5% of the cases they detect, this gives them really important clues about what’s happening there,” said Anderson Brito, PhD, a virologist and postdoctoral researcher at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., where investigators are creating custom PCR tests to detect the B117 variant.

Dr. Brito, who lived in the United Kingdom for 4 years while studying for his doctorate at Imperial College London, said a “major advantage” is the more unified process to collect and sequence samples. Crucial information – including the date and place of collection – comes with each sample, which fuels not only sequencing, but an epidemiologic perspective.

“They’re not in the dark at all,” Dr. Brito said in an interview. “I think no other country in the world knows better which virus lineages are circulating.”

The CDC launched the SPHERES consortium in May 2020 to coordinate the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes across the United States.

But American genomic efforts are “not as centralized,” said Dr. Brito, whose lab detected the first two cases of the U.K. variant in Connecticut on Jan. 6. “We struggle to get samples, because they’re decentralized to a level where there’s little coordination between hospitals and research centers. They’re not as connected as in the U.K. If we just get a sample and it has no date of collection and no origin information, for example, it’s basically useless.”

Global genomic collaborations include GISAID, an international database where researchers share new genomes from various coronaviruses. As of mid-January, the United States had submitted about 68,000 sequences to GISAID, adding about 3,000 new samples every week and expecting even more from commercial labs in coming days, according to the CDC.

“The U.K. is definitely much more on top of looking for variants as they pop up,” said Gigi Gronvall, PhD, an immunologist and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore. “The U.S. has now turned that up.”
 

Warning from British scientists to the world

Despite these genomic accomplishments, some British scientists said they have regrets too, wishing they’d known just how rapidly SARS-CoV-2 was actually spreading a year ago, when it hit western Europe.

That information was crucial not only for preventive efforts, but because viruses inevitably mutate faster the more people who are infected, said Igor Rudan, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Global Health Research at University of Edinburgh.

“Italy showed us just how fast it was spreading and how deadly it is for the very old and people with multiple comorbidities,” said Dr. Rudan, who also editor in chief of the Journal of Global Health. “We wish we knew it was spreading so fast, and we wish we knew the threshold of cases we could allow to be infected before the virus would mutate.”

More mutations mean more new strains of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Rudan said in an interview. “We’ve reached that threshold now and will see more of these mutations.”

Despite its current struggles, the United Kingdom is reaching beyond tracking its new variant’s spread and trying to identify new mutations that might change the way the virus behaves.

Three features of any emerging variant are particularly important, Dr. Peacock explained: Is it more transmissible? Is it more lethal? And does it cut the ability of natural- or vaccine-induced immunity to protect people from infection?

“We need to sequence people coming to the hospital who are sicker,” said Dr. Peacock, also a professor of public health and microbiology at the University of Cambridge (England). “Also, if anyone has the infection after they’ve already been sick or had the vaccine, we really want to know what that looks like” genomically.

SARS-CoV-2 has already logged more than 4,000 mutations, Dr. Peacock said. But “knowing that viruses mutate all the time is not sufficient reason not to look. We really want to know if mutations lead to changes in amino acids, and if that can lead to changes in functionality.”

For the moment, however, experts say they’re relieved that the U.K. strain doesn’t seem able to evade COVID-19 vaccines or render them less effective.

“Even though mutations are common, those able to change the viral coding are rare,” Dr. Brito explained. If necessary, vaccines could be tweaked to replace the spike gene sequence “within a matter of weeks. We already do this for flu vaccines. Every year, we have to monitor variants of the virus circulating to develop a vaccine that covers most of them. If we end up having to do it for SARS-CoV-2, I would not be surprised.”

But variant-fueled increases in infections will require more people to be vaccinated before herd immunity can be achieved, Dr. Rudan warned. “If it spreads faster, we’ll need to vaccinate probably 85% of people versus 70% to reach herd immunity.”

One lesson the COVID-19 pandemic has driven home “is to always be on your guard about what happens next,” Dr. Peacock said. Although confident about the genomic efforts in the United Kingdom to date, she and her colleagues feel they’re still reaching for a complete understanding of the evolutionary changes of the virus.

“We’re ahead of the curve right now, but we want to get in front of the curve,” Dr. Peacock said. “It’s essential to get ahead of what might be around the corner because we don’t know how the virus is going to evolve.”

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

Just as Brazil surpassed 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 on Jan. 7, news from Bahia added another layer of concern: A platform case report in a preprint detailed the first case of reinfection in that state, apparently caused by a new strain, one having the E484K mutation.

That variant, now called Brazil P.1, has migrated to the United States. The Minnesota Department of Health announced on Jan. 25 the nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with it.

The mutation is located in the protein gene of the virus’ spike, which forms the crown structure of coronaviruses and is responsible for the virus’ binding to human cells. The E484K mutation is now the focus because it’s associated with mutations that escape the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies.

“This mutation is at the center of worldwide concern, and it is the first time that it has appeared in a reinfection,” the study’s first author, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, MD, a researcher at the Salvador regional unit of Instituto D’Or of Teaching and Research, based at Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil, explained in an interview.

“We will wait for the sample from Bahia to confirm the case from the perspective of the Ministry of Health’s surveillance network,” said Fernando Motta, PhD, deputy head of the Laboratory for Respiratory Virus and Measles at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de Janeiro, which acts as a national reference center for respiratory viruses with the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS) and as a reference for the World Health Organization.
 

A case of reinfection

The case patient that led to the alarm was a 45-year-old woman who is a health care executive. She had no comorbidities. The team had been following health care professionals and patients who had tested positive on reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing more than once to understand whether they represented cases of prolonged viral persistence or new infections.

The woman had symptoms of viral infection on two occasions (May 26 and Oct. 26). On both occasions, results of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal samples were positive. In the first episode, the patient had diarrhea, myalgia, asthenia, and odynophagia for about 7 days. She returned to activities 21 days later. In the second episode, she had more severe symptoms that lasted longer, but she still did not require hospitalization.

“It was the first confirmed case of reinfection in Bahia, and in the second episode, we observed a mutation that could have an impact on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus,” Dr. Souza said. “The research continues with the investigation of cases in which the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR more than once in an interval greater than 45 days, to have a higher level of evidence.”

He stressed that “it is very important to reinforce measures to control the pandemic, social distance, use of masks, and speed up vaccination to be able to control the circulation of the virus, while monitoring the evolution of it.”
 

On alert for more cases

A person who twice tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR is suspected of having been reinfected, provided 90 or more days have elapsed between the two episodes, regardless of the condition observed. To confirm the suspected case, the samples must be sent to reference laboratories according to a plan established by the Ministry of Health in Brazil.

A health professional living in the Brazilian city of Natal represented the first confirmed case of reinfection by the new coronavirus in Brazil. That case was announced on Dec. 10, 2020.

“We communicated this case of reinfection to the MS in early December 2020. And the second sample already had the E484K mutation on the spike, as in the case of Bahia,” said Dr. Motta.

The first step in differentiating reinfection from persistence is to observe differences in the genotyping of the virus. For the technique to be successful, Dr. Souza said, researchers need a large amount of viral genetic material, which usually cannot be obtained.

“That is why there are many more suspected than confirmed cases,” Dr. Souza explained. He admitted that, although there are few cases, “it is increasingly clear that reinfection is a reality.”
 

Markers of mutations

What worried the researchers most was not only the possibility of reinfection but also the fact that preliminary analyses showed a specific mutation.

“The E484K mutation is present in a group of variants identified in South Africa that have been associated with increased infectivity and has been observed in a strain recently described in Brazil,” Dr. Souza said.

Mutations are expected, appear spontaneously, and in most cases have no effects on transmission or clinical outcome – they are simply used as markers and are useful for contact tracing or studying transmission routes. But some mutations can last because they provide an advantage for the pathogen, even if only momentary. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, mutations in the protein spike gene (S) are relevant because they may give clues to that advantage – as well as to changes in infectivity, transmission potential, antibodies, and response to vaccines.

A variant of the virus that has eight changes that affect the protein S gene – and several others in different genes – is behind the increase in the number of cases in London and southeastern England. Researchers from the University of São Paulo identified one of the factors that made this new variant – classified as B.1.1.7 – more infectious.

With bioinformatics tools, they found that the protein S gene in the new viral strain has a stronger molecular interaction with the ACE2 receptor, which is on the surface of human cells and to which the virus binds, making infection possible. The variant has already spread to the rest of the world, and the first two cases have been confirmed in Brazil by the Adolf Lutz Institute.

The alert for a new variant in Africa – similar to B.1.1.7 in the United Kingdom in that it carries nine changes in protein S at position 501 – was made by the Brazilian virologist Tulio de Oliveira, PhD.

“We found that this strain seems to be spreading much faster,” Dr. Oliveira, who is with the University of KwaZulu Natal, told the journal Science. His work first alerted British scientists to the importance of the position N501Y.

“The new variants just described in the United Kingdom and South Africa are slightly more transmissible and have already been identified in cases imported into Brazil,” Dr. Motta said. “Unfortunately, we believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes indigenous.”
 

The viral family grows

Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are classified into strains on the basis of small differences in their genetic material. Since Dec. 26, 2020, in addition to the British and South African variants, it appears the Carioca lineage also is a player.

In a preprint article, researchers analyzed the evolution of the epidemic in Rio de Janeiro from April 2020 until just before the new increase in incidence in December. They compared the complete sequences of the viral genome of 180 patients from different municipalities. The study, which is being jointly conducted by members of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing, identified a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has five unique mutations (from one of the predominant strains). Concern arose because, in addition to those five genetic changes, many of the samples had a sixth – the well-known E484K mutation.

“The three lines – the U.K., South Africa, and Brazil – were almost synchronous publications, but there is no clear evidence that they have any kind of common ancestry,” Carolina M. Voloch, PhD, the article’s first author and a biologist and researcher at the Molecular Virology Laboratory and associate professor in the department of genetics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said in an interview.

Dr. Voloch’s research focuses on the use of bioinformatics tools to study the molecular, phylogenetic, and genomic evolution of viruses.

“The emergence of new strains is common for viruses,” she said. “It can be happening anywhere in the world at any time.”

She stressed that identifying when mutations emerge will help to define the new Brazilian lineage. Researchers are working to determine whether the neutralizing antibodies of patients who have been infected with other strains respond to this Rio de Janeiro strain.

“We hope to soon be sharing these results,” Dr. Voloch said.

The article’s authors estimated that the new strain likely appeared in early July. They say more analysis is needed to predict whether the changes have a major effect on viral infectivity, the host’s immune response, or the severity of the disease. Asked about the lineage that caused the reinfection in Bahia, Dr. Voloch said she hadn’t yet contacted the authors to conduct a joint analysis but added that the data disclosed in the preprint would not represent the same variant.

“There are only two of the five mutations that characterize the Rio de Janeiro lineage. However, it has the E484K mutation that is present in more than 94% of the samples of the new variant of Rio,” she said.

She added that there’s a possibility of reinfection by the lineage that’s circulating in Rio de Janeiro and in other states, as well as countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

“The Carioca virus is being exported to the rest of the world,” Dr. Voloch said.
 

Virus’ diversity still unknown

Researchers now know that SARS-CoV-2 probably circulated silently in Brazil as early as February 2020 and reached all the nation’s regions before air travel was restricted. Since the first half of 2020, there have been two predominant strains.

“More than a dozen strains have been identified in Brazil, but more important than counting strains to identify the speed with which they arise – which is directly associated with the rate of infection, which is very high in the country,” said Dr. Motta.

The so-called variant of Rio de Janeiro, he said, has also been detected in other states in four regions of Brazil. The key to documenting variants is to get a more representative sample with genomes from other parts of the country.

As of Jan. 10, a total of 347,000 complete genome sequences had been shared globally through open databases since SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, but the contribution of countries is uneven. Although the cost and complexity of genetic sequencing has dropped significantly over time, effective sequencing programs still require substantial investments in personnel, equipment, reagents, and bioinformatics infrastructure.

According to Dr. Voloch, it will only be possible to combat the new coronavirus by knowing its diversity and understanding how it evolves. The Fiocruz Genomic Network has made an infographic available so researchers can track the strains circulating in Brazil. It›s the result of collaboration between researchers from Fiocruz and the GISAID Initiative, an international partnership that promotes rapid data sharing.

As of Jan. 5, researchers in Brazil had studied 1,897 genomes – not nearly enough.

“In Brazil, there is little testing and even less sequencing,” lamented Dr. Souza.

“In the U.K., 1 in 600 cases is sequenced. In Brazil it is less than 1 in 10 million cases,” Dr. Voloch added.

So far, no decisive factors for public health, such as greater virulence or greater transmissibility, have been identified in any of the strains established in Brazil. The million-dollar question is whether the emergence of new strains could have an impact on the effectiveness of vaccines being administered today.

“In one way or another, the vaccine is our best bet ever, even if in the future we identify escapist mutants and have to modify it,” Dr. Motta said. “It is what we do annually with influenza.”

Dr. Voloch, Dr. Motta, and Dr. Souza disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on the Portuguese edition of Medscape.com.

Just as Brazil surpassed 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 on Jan. 7, news from Bahia added another layer of concern: A platform case report in a preprint detailed the first case of reinfection in that state, apparently caused by a new strain, one having the E484K mutation.

That variant, now called Brazil P.1, has migrated to the United States. The Minnesota Department of Health announced on Jan. 25 the nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with it.

The mutation is located in the protein gene of the virus’ spike, which forms the crown structure of coronaviruses and is responsible for the virus’ binding to human cells. The E484K mutation is now the focus because it’s associated with mutations that escape the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies.

“This mutation is at the center of worldwide concern, and it is the first time that it has appeared in a reinfection,” the study’s first author, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, MD, a researcher at the Salvador regional unit of Instituto D’Or of Teaching and Research, based at Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil, explained in an interview.

“We will wait for the sample from Bahia to confirm the case from the perspective of the Ministry of Health’s surveillance network,” said Fernando Motta, PhD, deputy head of the Laboratory for Respiratory Virus and Measles at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de Janeiro, which acts as a national reference center for respiratory viruses with the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS) and as a reference for the World Health Organization.
 

A case of reinfection

The case patient that led to the alarm was a 45-year-old woman who is a health care executive. She had no comorbidities. The team had been following health care professionals and patients who had tested positive on reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing more than once to understand whether they represented cases of prolonged viral persistence or new infections.

The woman had symptoms of viral infection on two occasions (May 26 and Oct. 26). On both occasions, results of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal samples were positive. In the first episode, the patient had diarrhea, myalgia, asthenia, and odynophagia for about 7 days. She returned to activities 21 days later. In the second episode, she had more severe symptoms that lasted longer, but she still did not require hospitalization.

“It was the first confirmed case of reinfection in Bahia, and in the second episode, we observed a mutation that could have an impact on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus,” Dr. Souza said. “The research continues with the investigation of cases in which the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR more than once in an interval greater than 45 days, to have a higher level of evidence.”

He stressed that “it is very important to reinforce measures to control the pandemic, social distance, use of masks, and speed up vaccination to be able to control the circulation of the virus, while monitoring the evolution of it.”
 

On alert for more cases

A person who twice tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR is suspected of having been reinfected, provided 90 or more days have elapsed between the two episodes, regardless of the condition observed. To confirm the suspected case, the samples must be sent to reference laboratories according to a plan established by the Ministry of Health in Brazil.

A health professional living in the Brazilian city of Natal represented the first confirmed case of reinfection by the new coronavirus in Brazil. That case was announced on Dec. 10, 2020.

“We communicated this case of reinfection to the MS in early December 2020. And the second sample already had the E484K mutation on the spike, as in the case of Bahia,” said Dr. Motta.

The first step in differentiating reinfection from persistence is to observe differences in the genotyping of the virus. For the technique to be successful, Dr. Souza said, researchers need a large amount of viral genetic material, which usually cannot be obtained.

“That is why there are many more suspected than confirmed cases,” Dr. Souza explained. He admitted that, although there are few cases, “it is increasingly clear that reinfection is a reality.”
 

Markers of mutations

What worried the researchers most was not only the possibility of reinfection but also the fact that preliminary analyses showed a specific mutation.

“The E484K mutation is present in a group of variants identified in South Africa that have been associated with increased infectivity and has been observed in a strain recently described in Brazil,” Dr. Souza said.

Mutations are expected, appear spontaneously, and in most cases have no effects on transmission or clinical outcome – they are simply used as markers and are useful for contact tracing or studying transmission routes. But some mutations can last because they provide an advantage for the pathogen, even if only momentary. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, mutations in the protein spike gene (S) are relevant because they may give clues to that advantage – as well as to changes in infectivity, transmission potential, antibodies, and response to vaccines.

A variant of the virus that has eight changes that affect the protein S gene – and several others in different genes – is behind the increase in the number of cases in London and southeastern England. Researchers from the University of São Paulo identified one of the factors that made this new variant – classified as B.1.1.7 – more infectious.

With bioinformatics tools, they found that the protein S gene in the new viral strain has a stronger molecular interaction with the ACE2 receptor, which is on the surface of human cells and to which the virus binds, making infection possible. The variant has already spread to the rest of the world, and the first two cases have been confirmed in Brazil by the Adolf Lutz Institute.

The alert for a new variant in Africa – similar to B.1.1.7 in the United Kingdom in that it carries nine changes in protein S at position 501 – was made by the Brazilian virologist Tulio de Oliveira, PhD.

“We found that this strain seems to be spreading much faster,” Dr. Oliveira, who is with the University of KwaZulu Natal, told the journal Science. His work first alerted British scientists to the importance of the position N501Y.

“The new variants just described in the United Kingdom and South Africa are slightly more transmissible and have already been identified in cases imported into Brazil,” Dr. Motta said. “Unfortunately, we believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes indigenous.”
 

The viral family grows

Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are classified into strains on the basis of small differences in their genetic material. Since Dec. 26, 2020, in addition to the British and South African variants, it appears the Carioca lineage also is a player.

In a preprint article, researchers analyzed the evolution of the epidemic in Rio de Janeiro from April 2020 until just before the new increase in incidence in December. They compared the complete sequences of the viral genome of 180 patients from different municipalities. The study, which is being jointly conducted by members of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing, identified a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has five unique mutations (from one of the predominant strains). Concern arose because, in addition to those five genetic changes, many of the samples had a sixth – the well-known E484K mutation.

“The three lines – the U.K., South Africa, and Brazil – were almost synchronous publications, but there is no clear evidence that they have any kind of common ancestry,” Carolina M. Voloch, PhD, the article’s first author and a biologist and researcher at the Molecular Virology Laboratory and associate professor in the department of genetics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said in an interview.

Dr. Voloch’s research focuses on the use of bioinformatics tools to study the molecular, phylogenetic, and genomic evolution of viruses.

“The emergence of new strains is common for viruses,” she said. “It can be happening anywhere in the world at any time.”

She stressed that identifying when mutations emerge will help to define the new Brazilian lineage. Researchers are working to determine whether the neutralizing antibodies of patients who have been infected with other strains respond to this Rio de Janeiro strain.

“We hope to soon be sharing these results,” Dr. Voloch said.

The article’s authors estimated that the new strain likely appeared in early July. They say more analysis is needed to predict whether the changes have a major effect on viral infectivity, the host’s immune response, or the severity of the disease. Asked about the lineage that caused the reinfection in Bahia, Dr. Voloch said she hadn’t yet contacted the authors to conduct a joint analysis but added that the data disclosed in the preprint would not represent the same variant.

“There are only two of the five mutations that characterize the Rio de Janeiro lineage. However, it has the E484K mutation that is present in more than 94% of the samples of the new variant of Rio,” she said.

She added that there’s a possibility of reinfection by the lineage that’s circulating in Rio de Janeiro and in other states, as well as countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

“The Carioca virus is being exported to the rest of the world,” Dr. Voloch said.
 

Virus’ diversity still unknown

Researchers now know that SARS-CoV-2 probably circulated silently in Brazil as early as February 2020 and reached all the nation’s regions before air travel was restricted. Since the first half of 2020, there have been two predominant strains.

“More than a dozen strains have been identified in Brazil, but more important than counting strains to identify the speed with which they arise – which is directly associated with the rate of infection, which is very high in the country,” said Dr. Motta.

The so-called variant of Rio de Janeiro, he said, has also been detected in other states in four regions of Brazil. The key to documenting variants is to get a more representative sample with genomes from other parts of the country.

As of Jan. 10, a total of 347,000 complete genome sequences had been shared globally through open databases since SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, but the contribution of countries is uneven. Although the cost and complexity of genetic sequencing has dropped significantly over time, effective sequencing programs still require substantial investments in personnel, equipment, reagents, and bioinformatics infrastructure.

According to Dr. Voloch, it will only be possible to combat the new coronavirus by knowing its diversity and understanding how it evolves. The Fiocruz Genomic Network has made an infographic available so researchers can track the strains circulating in Brazil. It›s the result of collaboration between researchers from Fiocruz and the GISAID Initiative, an international partnership that promotes rapid data sharing.

As of Jan. 5, researchers in Brazil had studied 1,897 genomes – not nearly enough.

“In Brazil, there is little testing and even less sequencing,” lamented Dr. Souza.

“In the U.K., 1 in 600 cases is sequenced. In Brazil it is less than 1 in 10 million cases,” Dr. Voloch added.

So far, no decisive factors for public health, such as greater virulence or greater transmissibility, have been identified in any of the strains established in Brazil. The million-dollar question is whether the emergence of new strains could have an impact on the effectiveness of vaccines being administered today.

“In one way or another, the vaccine is our best bet ever, even if in the future we identify escapist mutants and have to modify it,” Dr. Motta said. “It is what we do annually with influenza.”

Dr. Voloch, Dr. Motta, and Dr. Souza disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on the Portuguese edition of Medscape.com.

Just as Brazil surpassed 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 on Jan. 7, news from Bahia added another layer of concern: A platform case report in a preprint detailed the first case of reinfection in that state, apparently caused by a new strain, one having the E484K mutation.

That variant, now called Brazil P.1, has migrated to the United States. The Minnesota Department of Health announced on Jan. 25 the nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with it.

The mutation is located in the protein gene of the virus’ spike, which forms the crown structure of coronaviruses and is responsible for the virus’ binding to human cells. The E484K mutation is now the focus because it’s associated with mutations that escape the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies.

“This mutation is at the center of worldwide concern, and it is the first time that it has appeared in a reinfection,” the study’s first author, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, MD, a researcher at the Salvador regional unit of Instituto D’Or of Teaching and Research, based at Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil, explained in an interview.

“We will wait for the sample from Bahia to confirm the case from the perspective of the Ministry of Health’s surveillance network,” said Fernando Motta, PhD, deputy head of the Laboratory for Respiratory Virus and Measles at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de Janeiro, which acts as a national reference center for respiratory viruses with the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS) and as a reference for the World Health Organization.
 

A case of reinfection

The case patient that led to the alarm was a 45-year-old woman who is a health care executive. She had no comorbidities. The team had been following health care professionals and patients who had tested positive on reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing more than once to understand whether they represented cases of prolonged viral persistence or new infections.

The woman had symptoms of viral infection on two occasions (May 26 and Oct. 26). On both occasions, results of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal samples were positive. In the first episode, the patient had diarrhea, myalgia, asthenia, and odynophagia for about 7 days. She returned to activities 21 days later. In the second episode, she had more severe symptoms that lasted longer, but she still did not require hospitalization.

“It was the first confirmed case of reinfection in Bahia, and in the second episode, we observed a mutation that could have an impact on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus,” Dr. Souza said. “The research continues with the investigation of cases in which the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR more than once in an interval greater than 45 days, to have a higher level of evidence.”

He stressed that “it is very important to reinforce measures to control the pandemic, social distance, use of masks, and speed up vaccination to be able to control the circulation of the virus, while monitoring the evolution of it.”
 

On alert for more cases

A person who twice tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR is suspected of having been reinfected, provided 90 or more days have elapsed between the two episodes, regardless of the condition observed. To confirm the suspected case, the samples must be sent to reference laboratories according to a plan established by the Ministry of Health in Brazil.

A health professional living in the Brazilian city of Natal represented the first confirmed case of reinfection by the new coronavirus in Brazil. That case was announced on Dec. 10, 2020.

“We communicated this case of reinfection to the MS in early December 2020. And the second sample already had the E484K mutation on the spike, as in the case of Bahia,” said Dr. Motta.

The first step in differentiating reinfection from persistence is to observe differences in the genotyping of the virus. For the technique to be successful, Dr. Souza said, researchers need a large amount of viral genetic material, which usually cannot be obtained.

“That is why there are many more suspected than confirmed cases,” Dr. Souza explained. He admitted that, although there are few cases, “it is increasingly clear that reinfection is a reality.”
 

Markers of mutations

What worried the researchers most was not only the possibility of reinfection but also the fact that preliminary analyses showed a specific mutation.

“The E484K mutation is present in a group of variants identified in South Africa that have been associated with increased infectivity and has been observed in a strain recently described in Brazil,” Dr. Souza said.

Mutations are expected, appear spontaneously, and in most cases have no effects on transmission or clinical outcome – they are simply used as markers and are useful for contact tracing or studying transmission routes. But some mutations can last because they provide an advantage for the pathogen, even if only momentary. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, mutations in the protein spike gene (S) are relevant because they may give clues to that advantage – as well as to changes in infectivity, transmission potential, antibodies, and response to vaccines.

A variant of the virus that has eight changes that affect the protein S gene – and several others in different genes – is behind the increase in the number of cases in London and southeastern England. Researchers from the University of São Paulo identified one of the factors that made this new variant – classified as B.1.1.7 – more infectious.

With bioinformatics tools, they found that the protein S gene in the new viral strain has a stronger molecular interaction with the ACE2 receptor, which is on the surface of human cells and to which the virus binds, making infection possible. The variant has already spread to the rest of the world, and the first two cases have been confirmed in Brazil by the Adolf Lutz Institute.

The alert for a new variant in Africa – similar to B.1.1.7 in the United Kingdom in that it carries nine changes in protein S at position 501 – was made by the Brazilian virologist Tulio de Oliveira, PhD.

“We found that this strain seems to be spreading much faster,” Dr. Oliveira, who is with the University of KwaZulu Natal, told the journal Science. His work first alerted British scientists to the importance of the position N501Y.

“The new variants just described in the United Kingdom and South Africa are slightly more transmissible and have already been identified in cases imported into Brazil,” Dr. Motta said. “Unfortunately, we believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes indigenous.”
 

The viral family grows

Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are classified into strains on the basis of small differences in their genetic material. Since Dec. 26, 2020, in addition to the British and South African variants, it appears the Carioca lineage also is a player.

In a preprint article, researchers analyzed the evolution of the epidemic in Rio de Janeiro from April 2020 until just before the new increase in incidence in December. They compared the complete sequences of the viral genome of 180 patients from different municipalities. The study, which is being jointly conducted by members of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing, identified a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has five unique mutations (from one of the predominant strains). Concern arose because, in addition to those five genetic changes, many of the samples had a sixth – the well-known E484K mutation.

“The three lines – the U.K., South Africa, and Brazil – were almost synchronous publications, but there is no clear evidence that they have any kind of common ancestry,” Carolina M. Voloch, PhD, the article’s first author and a biologist and researcher at the Molecular Virology Laboratory and associate professor in the department of genetics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said in an interview.

Dr. Voloch’s research focuses on the use of bioinformatics tools to study the molecular, phylogenetic, and genomic evolution of viruses.

“The emergence of new strains is common for viruses,” she said. “It can be happening anywhere in the world at any time.”

She stressed that identifying when mutations emerge will help to define the new Brazilian lineage. Researchers are working to determine whether the neutralizing antibodies of patients who have been infected with other strains respond to this Rio de Janeiro strain.

“We hope to soon be sharing these results,” Dr. Voloch said.

The article’s authors estimated that the new strain likely appeared in early July. They say more analysis is needed to predict whether the changes have a major effect on viral infectivity, the host’s immune response, or the severity of the disease. Asked about the lineage that caused the reinfection in Bahia, Dr. Voloch said she hadn’t yet contacted the authors to conduct a joint analysis but added that the data disclosed in the preprint would not represent the same variant.

“There are only two of the five mutations that characterize the Rio de Janeiro lineage. However, it has the E484K mutation that is present in more than 94% of the samples of the new variant of Rio,” she said.

She added that there’s a possibility of reinfection by the lineage that’s circulating in Rio de Janeiro and in other states, as well as countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

“The Carioca virus is being exported to the rest of the world,” Dr. Voloch said.
 

Virus’ diversity still unknown

Researchers now know that SARS-CoV-2 probably circulated silently in Brazil as early as February 2020 and reached all the nation’s regions before air travel was restricted. Since the first half of 2020, there have been two predominant strains.

“More than a dozen strains have been identified in Brazil, but more important than counting strains to identify the speed with which they arise – which is directly associated with the rate of infection, which is very high in the country,” said Dr. Motta.

The so-called variant of Rio de Janeiro, he said, has also been detected in other states in four regions of Brazil. The key to documenting variants is to get a more representative sample with genomes from other parts of the country.

As of Jan. 10, a total of 347,000 complete genome sequences had been shared globally through open databases since SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, but the contribution of countries is uneven. Although the cost and complexity of genetic sequencing has dropped significantly over time, effective sequencing programs still require substantial investments in personnel, equipment, reagents, and bioinformatics infrastructure.

According to Dr. Voloch, it will only be possible to combat the new coronavirus by knowing its diversity and understanding how it evolves. The Fiocruz Genomic Network has made an infographic available so researchers can track the strains circulating in Brazil. It›s the result of collaboration between researchers from Fiocruz and the GISAID Initiative, an international partnership that promotes rapid data sharing.

As of Jan. 5, researchers in Brazil had studied 1,897 genomes – not nearly enough.

“In Brazil, there is little testing and even less sequencing,” lamented Dr. Souza.

“In the U.K., 1 in 600 cases is sequenced. In Brazil it is less than 1 in 10 million cases,” Dr. Voloch added.

So far, no decisive factors for public health, such as greater virulence or greater transmissibility, have been identified in any of the strains established in Brazil. The million-dollar question is whether the emergence of new strains could have an impact on the effectiveness of vaccines being administered today.

“In one way or another, the vaccine is our best bet ever, even if in the future we identify escapist mutants and have to modify it,” Dr. Motta said. “It is what we do annually with influenza.”

Dr. Voloch, Dr. Motta, and Dr. Souza disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on the Portuguese edition of Medscape.com.

Seven days into his presidency, Joe Biden announced that he is taking new steps to speed vaccines to Americans.

The president said he would increase the supply of vaccines to states from 8.6 million doses to 10 million doses per week, a 16% increase, for at least the next 3 weeks.

He said he was working to give states more advanced notice of their allotments so they could better plan their campaigns. He also said doses would be doled out based on population.

“We will both increase the supply and give our state and local partners more certainty about when doses will arrive,” he said Tuesday.

Finally, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would “soon be able to confirm” the purchase of 200 million more doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – 100 million of each – to effectively double the nation’s supply by “early summer.” That would increase the nation’s supply enough to fully vaccinate 300 million Americans by fall.

Mr. Biden said he was also working to shift the focus to getting more doses to economically disadvantaged communities and rural areas, which have fallen further behind as the vaccine rollout has faltered.

Even with these steps, Mr. Biden stressed that it would take months for vaccines to curb infections and deaths. He said, for the time being, masks, not vaccines, are the best way to save lives.

“The brutal truth is its going to take months before we get the majority of Americans vaccinated. Months,” he said, adding that wearing masks until at least April could save to save 50,000 lives.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Biden said, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get into this mess overnight. It’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear we’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic,” he said.

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

Seven days into his presidency, Joe Biden announced that he is taking new steps to speed vaccines to Americans.

The president said he would increase the supply of vaccines to states from 8.6 million doses to 10 million doses per week, a 16% increase, for at least the next 3 weeks.

He said he was working to give states more advanced notice of their allotments so they could better plan their campaigns. He also said doses would be doled out based on population.

“We will both increase the supply and give our state and local partners more certainty about when doses will arrive,” he said Tuesday.

Finally, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would “soon be able to confirm” the purchase of 200 million more doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – 100 million of each – to effectively double the nation’s supply by “early summer.” That would increase the nation’s supply enough to fully vaccinate 300 million Americans by fall.

Mr. Biden said he was also working to shift the focus to getting more doses to economically disadvantaged communities and rural areas, which have fallen further behind as the vaccine rollout has faltered.

Even with these steps, Mr. Biden stressed that it would take months for vaccines to curb infections and deaths. He said, for the time being, masks, not vaccines, are the best way to save lives.

“The brutal truth is its going to take months before we get the majority of Americans vaccinated. Months,” he said, adding that wearing masks until at least April could save to save 50,000 lives.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Biden said, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get into this mess overnight. It’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear we’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic,” he said.

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

Seven days into his presidency, Joe Biden announced that he is taking new steps to speed vaccines to Americans.

The president said he would increase the supply of vaccines to states from 8.6 million doses to 10 million doses per week, a 16% increase, for at least the next 3 weeks.

He said he was working to give states more advanced notice of their allotments so they could better plan their campaigns. He also said doses would be doled out based on population.

“We will both increase the supply and give our state and local partners more certainty about when doses will arrive,” he said Tuesday.

Finally, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would “soon be able to confirm” the purchase of 200 million more doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – 100 million of each – to effectively double the nation’s supply by “early summer.” That would increase the nation’s supply enough to fully vaccinate 300 million Americans by fall.

Mr. Biden said he was also working to shift the focus to getting more doses to economically disadvantaged communities and rural areas, which have fallen further behind as the vaccine rollout has faltered.

Even with these steps, Mr. Biden stressed that it would take months for vaccines to curb infections and deaths. He said, for the time being, masks, not vaccines, are the best way to save lives.

“The brutal truth is its going to take months before we get the majority of Americans vaccinated. Months,” he said, adding that wearing masks until at least April could save to save 50,000 lives.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Biden said, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get into this mess overnight. It’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear we’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic,” he said.

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

New COVID-19 cases in children fell by almost 46,000 last week, returning to the gradual decline that began in mid-December, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 165,000 new cases reported during the week of Jan. 15-21 were down by almost 22% from the previous week’s 211,000, when the new-case count reached its highest point in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Cumulative cases in children now stand at just over 2.67 million, and children represent 12.7% of all COVID-19 cases reported by 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. For the week of Jan. 15-21, children made up 14.8% of all new cases, the highest proportion since late September, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative rate of infection among children is up to 3,556 per 100,000 nationally, with states ranging from 943 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 8,195 in North Dakota. California has the most reported cases at 383,000, while Vermont has the fewest at 1,820, the two organizations reported.

There were 14 more deaths among children in the last week, bringing the total to 205 in the 43 states (plus New York City and Guam) reporting such data. Children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, and only 0.01% of all cases in children have resulted in death, the AAP and CHA said. There are still 10 states where no children have died from COVID-19.

Although severe illness appears to be rare in children, the AAP and CHA noted, “there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children fell by almost 46,000 last week, returning to the gradual decline that began in mid-December, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 165,000 new cases reported during the week of Jan. 15-21 were down by almost 22% from the previous week’s 211,000, when the new-case count reached its highest point in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Cumulative cases in children now stand at just over 2.67 million, and children represent 12.7% of all COVID-19 cases reported by 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. For the week of Jan. 15-21, children made up 14.8% of all new cases, the highest proportion since late September, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative rate of infection among children is up to 3,556 per 100,000 nationally, with states ranging from 943 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 8,195 in North Dakota. California has the most reported cases at 383,000, while Vermont has the fewest at 1,820, the two organizations reported.

There were 14 more deaths among children in the last week, bringing the total to 205 in the 43 states (plus New York City and Guam) reporting such data. Children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, and only 0.01% of all cases in children have resulted in death, the AAP and CHA said. There are still 10 states where no children have died from COVID-19.

Although severe illness appears to be rare in children, the AAP and CHA noted, “there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children fell by almost 46,000 last week, returning to the gradual decline that began in mid-December, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 165,000 new cases reported during the week of Jan. 15-21 were down by almost 22% from the previous week’s 211,000, when the new-case count reached its highest point in the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Cumulative cases in children now stand at just over 2.67 million, and children represent 12.7% of all COVID-19 cases reported by 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. For the week of Jan. 15-21, children made up 14.8% of all new cases, the highest proportion since late September, the AAP/CHA data show.

The cumulative rate of infection among children is up to 3,556 per 100,000 nationally, with states ranging from 943 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 8,195 in North Dakota. California has the most reported cases at 383,000, while Vermont has the fewest at 1,820, the two organizations reported.

There were 14 more deaths among children in the last week, bringing the total to 205 in the 43 states (plus New York City and Guam) reporting such data. Children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, and only 0.01% of all cases in children have resulted in death, the AAP and CHA said. There are still 10 states where no children have died from COVID-19.

Although severe illness appears to be rare in children, the AAP and CHA noted, “there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

[email protected]

As mutated strains of the coronavirus represent new threats in the pandemic, vaccine makers are racing to respond.

Moderna, whose two-dose vaccine has been authorized for use in the United States since Dec. 18, said on Jan. 25 that it is now investigating whether a third dose of the vaccine will better prevent the spread of a variant first seen in South Africa, while it also tests a new vaccine formula for the same purpose.

“Out of an abundance of caution and leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are advancing an emerging variant booster candidate against the variant first identified in the Republic of South Africa into the clinic to determine if it will be more effective … against this and potentially future variants,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. Pfizer and BioNTech, whose vaccine was also authorized in December, announced on Jan. 20 that their COVID-19 vaccine creates antibodies that could protect vaccine recipients from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7.

Moderna on Jan. 25 said laboratory tests have shown its COVID-19 vaccine could protect against the U.K. strain but that it is less effective – while still meeting efficacy benchmarks – against the strain identified in South Africa. Data from the study were submitted to a preprint server on Jan. 25 but have not yet been peer reviewed.

“This is not a problem yet,” Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC.

“Prepare for it. Sequence these viruses,” he said. “Get ready just in case a variant emerges, which is resistant.”

There were at least 195 confirmed cases of patients infected with the U.K. variant, which is believed to be as much as 70% more transmissible, in the United States as of Jan. 22, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases from the South African variant have been confirmed in the United States. To try to prevent the variant from entering the country, President Joe Biden plans to ban travel from South Africa, except for American citizens and permanent residents.

The U.S. has reported more than 25 million total COVID-19 cases, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, marking another major milestone during the pandemic.

That means about 1 in 13 people have contracted the virus, or about 7.6% of the U.S. population.

“Twenty-five million cases is an incredible scale of tragedy,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The New York Times. She called the pandemic one of the worst public health crises in history.

After the first U.S. case was reported in January 2020, it took more than 9 months to reach 10 million cases in early November. Numbers rose during the holidays, and 10 million more cases were reported by the end of the year.

Following a major surge throughout January 2021, with a peak of more than 300,000 daily cases on some days, the U.S. reached 25 million in about 3 weeks.

Hospitalizations also peaked in early January, with more than 132,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Jan. 24, about 111,000 patients were hospitalized, which is the lowest since mid-December.

The U.S. has also reported nearly 420,000 deaths. As recently as the week starting Jan. 17, more than 4,400 deaths were reported in a single day, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Deaths are beginning to drop but still remain above 3,000 daily.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation released a new projection Jan. 22 that said new cases would decline steadily in coming weeks. New COVID-19 cases had fallen about 21% in 2 weeks prior to Jan. 25, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“We’ve been saying since summer that we thought we’d see a peak in January, and I think that, at the national level, we’re around the peak,” Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, director of the institute, told the newspaper.

At the same time, public health officials are concerned that new coronavirus variants could lead to an increase again. Dr. Murray said the variants could “totally change the story.” If the more transmissible strains spread quickly, cases and deaths will surge once more.

“We’re definitely on a downward slope, but I’m worried that the new variants will throw us a curveball in late February or March,” Ms. Rivers told the newspaper.
 

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

As mutated strains of the coronavirus represent new threats in the pandemic, vaccine makers are racing to respond.

Moderna, whose two-dose vaccine has been authorized for use in the United States since Dec. 18, said on Jan. 25 that it is now investigating whether a third dose of the vaccine will better prevent the spread of a variant first seen in South Africa, while it also tests a new vaccine formula for the same purpose.

“Out of an abundance of caution and leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are advancing an emerging variant booster candidate against the variant first identified in the Republic of South Africa into the clinic to determine if it will be more effective … against this and potentially future variants,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. Pfizer and BioNTech, whose vaccine was also authorized in December, announced on Jan. 20 that their COVID-19 vaccine creates antibodies that could protect vaccine recipients from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7.

Moderna on Jan. 25 said laboratory tests have shown its COVID-19 vaccine could protect against the U.K. strain but that it is less effective – while still meeting efficacy benchmarks – against the strain identified in South Africa. Data from the study were submitted to a preprint server on Jan. 25 but have not yet been peer reviewed.

“This is not a problem yet,” Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC.

“Prepare for it. Sequence these viruses,” he said. “Get ready just in case a variant emerges, which is resistant.”

There were at least 195 confirmed cases of patients infected with the U.K. variant, which is believed to be as much as 70% more transmissible, in the United States as of Jan. 22, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases from the South African variant have been confirmed in the United States. To try to prevent the variant from entering the country, President Joe Biden plans to ban travel from South Africa, except for American citizens and permanent residents.

The U.S. has reported more than 25 million total COVID-19 cases, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, marking another major milestone during the pandemic.

That means about 1 in 13 people have contracted the virus, or about 7.6% of the U.S. population.

“Twenty-five million cases is an incredible scale of tragedy,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The New York Times. She called the pandemic one of the worst public health crises in history.

After the first U.S. case was reported in January 2020, it took more than 9 months to reach 10 million cases in early November. Numbers rose during the holidays, and 10 million more cases were reported by the end of the year.

Following a major surge throughout January 2021, with a peak of more than 300,000 daily cases on some days, the U.S. reached 25 million in about 3 weeks.

Hospitalizations also peaked in early January, with more than 132,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Jan. 24, about 111,000 patients were hospitalized, which is the lowest since mid-December.

The U.S. has also reported nearly 420,000 deaths. As recently as the week starting Jan. 17, more than 4,400 deaths were reported in a single day, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Deaths are beginning to drop but still remain above 3,000 daily.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation released a new projection Jan. 22 that said new cases would decline steadily in coming weeks. New COVID-19 cases had fallen about 21% in 2 weeks prior to Jan. 25, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“We’ve been saying since summer that we thought we’d see a peak in January, and I think that, at the national level, we’re around the peak,” Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, director of the institute, told the newspaper.

At the same time, public health officials are concerned that new coronavirus variants could lead to an increase again. Dr. Murray said the variants could “totally change the story.” If the more transmissible strains spread quickly, cases and deaths will surge once more.

“We’re definitely on a downward slope, but I’m worried that the new variants will throw us a curveball in late February or March,” Ms. Rivers told the newspaper.
 

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

As mutated strains of the coronavirus represent new threats in the pandemic, vaccine makers are racing to respond.

Moderna, whose two-dose vaccine has been authorized for use in the United States since Dec. 18, said on Jan. 25 that it is now investigating whether a third dose of the vaccine will better prevent the spread of a variant first seen in South Africa, while it also tests a new vaccine formula for the same purpose.

“Out of an abundance of caution and leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are advancing an emerging variant booster candidate against the variant first identified in the Republic of South Africa into the clinic to determine if it will be more effective … against this and potentially future variants,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. Pfizer and BioNTech, whose vaccine was also authorized in December, announced on Jan. 20 that their COVID-19 vaccine creates antibodies that could protect vaccine recipients from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7.

Moderna on Jan. 25 said laboratory tests have shown its COVID-19 vaccine could protect against the U.K. strain but that it is less effective – while still meeting efficacy benchmarks – against the strain identified in South Africa. Data from the study were submitted to a preprint server on Jan. 25 but have not yet been peer reviewed.

“This is not a problem yet,” Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC.

“Prepare for it. Sequence these viruses,” he said. “Get ready just in case a variant emerges, which is resistant.”

There were at least 195 confirmed cases of patients infected with the U.K. variant, which is believed to be as much as 70% more transmissible, in the United States as of Jan. 22, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases from the South African variant have been confirmed in the United States. To try to prevent the variant from entering the country, President Joe Biden plans to ban travel from South Africa, except for American citizens and permanent residents.

The U.S. has reported more than 25 million total COVID-19 cases, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, marking another major milestone during the pandemic.

That means about 1 in 13 people have contracted the virus, or about 7.6% of the U.S. population.

“Twenty-five million cases is an incredible scale of tragedy,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The New York Times. She called the pandemic one of the worst public health crises in history.

After the first U.S. case was reported in January 2020, it took more than 9 months to reach 10 million cases in early November. Numbers rose during the holidays, and 10 million more cases were reported by the end of the year.

Following a major surge throughout January 2021, with a peak of more than 300,000 daily cases on some days, the U.S. reached 25 million in about 3 weeks.

Hospitalizations also peaked in early January, with more than 132,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Jan. 24, about 111,000 patients were hospitalized, which is the lowest since mid-December.

The U.S. has also reported nearly 420,000 deaths. As recently as the week starting Jan. 17, more than 4,400 deaths were reported in a single day, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Deaths are beginning to drop but still remain above 3,000 daily.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation released a new projection Jan. 22 that said new cases would decline steadily in coming weeks. New COVID-19 cases had fallen about 21% in 2 weeks prior to Jan. 25, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“We’ve been saying since summer that we thought we’d see a peak in January, and I think that, at the national level, we’re around the peak,” Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, director of the institute, told the newspaper.

At the same time, public health officials are concerned that new coronavirus variants could lead to an increase again. Dr. Murray said the variants could “totally change the story.” If the more transmissible strains spread quickly, cases and deaths will surge once more.

“We’re definitely on a downward slope, but I’m worried that the new variants will throw us a curveball in late February or March,” Ms. Rivers told the newspaper.
 

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